Chicago SouthShore and South Bend R.R. v. Northern Indiana Commuter Transp. Dist.

Decision Date18 June 1997
Docket Number1-96-2757,Nos. 1-96-0358,s. 1-96-0358
Citation289 Ill.App.3d 533,682 N.E.2d 156,224 Ill.Dec. 595
Parties, 224 Ill.Dec. 595 CHICAGO SOUTHSHORE and SOUTH BEND RAILROAD, Petitioner-Appellee, v. NORTHERN INDIANA COMMUTER TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, Respondent-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Robert M. Burke, Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Chicago, for Respondent-Appellant.

Michael J. Daley, Gregory C. Ward, Nisen & Elliot, Chicago, for Petitioner-Appellee.

Presiding Justice COUSINS delivered the opinion of the court:

The Chicago SouthShore and South Bend Railroad (SouthShore) initiated the instant action in Illinois, seeking confirmation of an arbitration award entered on August 11, 1994. The Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD) filed suit in Indiana seeking review of the arbitration award. SouthShore petitioned the Illinois trial court to confirm the award. NICTD contested the jurisdiction of the Illinois courts. The Illinois trial court denied NICTD's jurisdictional argument and confirmed the award. NICTD appealed. NICTD subsequently moved the Illinois trial court to vacate its judgment confirming the award. The trial court denied NICTD's motion to modify or vacate the judgment confirming the award. NICTD again filed an appeal. The two appeals have been consolidated. On appeal, NICTD contends that the Illinois courts: (1) did not have subject matter jurisdiction to review the arbitration award; (2) should not have exercised jurisdiction over NICTD under the principles of comity; (3) erred in refusing to enforce the arbitration contract between the parties as written; and (4) erred in refusing to allow NICTD a full and fair hearing on the merits of its claim and in failing to grant NICTD's petition to vacate judgment.

BACKGROUND

NICTD is an Indiana State Transportation District created pursuant to Indiana statute (Ind.Code § 8-5-15-1 et seq. (1992)). SouthShore is an Indiana partnership. On September 27, 1989, SouthShore and NICTD entered into a contract that governed the purchase of the assets of the bankrupt old SouthShore Railroad and the subsequent operation of rail freight and passenger services over the line purchased. Pursuant to the contract, NICTD was to operate the passenger service while SouthShore would run the freight operation.

Section 16.7 of the contract provided for the method by which disputes were to be resolved by the parties. Specifically, section 16.7 of the contract provided, in relevant part:

"If any dispute remains unresolved 30 days after notice of the existence of a dispute as delivered by one party to the other, either party, may, thereafter, submit the matter to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. In the event a dispute is submitted to arbitration under the terms of this Agreement, SSA (SouthShore) and NICTD each shall appoint one arbitrator and those two arbitrators shall select a third arbitrator. The decision of the majority of the three parties shall be final and conclusive between the parties, except that if either party claims that the arbitrator's decision is based upon an error of law, it may, within 30 days after receipt of such decision, institute an action at law within the State of Indiana to determine such legal issue. All arbitration proceedings shall take place within the State of Indiana and shall be governed by the rules of the American Arbitration Association."

Section 16.8 provides:

"This Agreement is to be interpreted pursuant to the laws of the State of Indiana."

The last relevant provision is section 16.9, which provides:

"It is intended that the subject matter hereof shall be embodied in definitive agreements to be prepared and executed by the parties subsequent to the date hereof. However, pending execution of such definitive agreements, this Agreement shall be deemed binding and enforceable and shall reflect the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, superseding any prior agreements or understandings."

During 1992, a dispute arose between NICTD and SouthShore concerning the interpretation of certain provisions contained within the contract. The parties were unable to resolve that dispute; therefore, NICTD invoked the arbitration provisions in the contract during 1993. All three appointed arbitrators were attorneys practicing in Chicago, Illinois. Also, SouthShore's attorney practices in Chicago. For the convenience of the arbitrators, NICTD agreed to allow the arbitration hearing to proceed in Chicago. The agreement to arbitrate in Chicago was reached before the arbitrators in a pre-arbitration memorandum. The arbitration hearings were held in Chicago on July 11-15 and August 2-3, 1994. The award was issued on August 11, 1994.

NICTD challenged the portion of the award dealing with the maintenance of way (MOW) fee by filing a complaint for declaratory judgment in Indiana on September 9, 1994. On February 22, 1995, the Indiana trial court found that, because the arbitration hearings took place in Illinois, Indiana courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear NICTD's complaint for declaratory judgment. The Indiana trial court, therefore, dismissed NICTD's complaint for declaratory judgment action.

On October 28, 1994, SouthShore filed a motion for confirmation of the arbitration award in the Illinois trial court. In response, NICTD filed a special and limited appearance and contested the Illinois court's subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute and also contended that, under the principles of comity, the Illinois court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over NICTD.

On March 14, 1995, the Illinois trial court entered its order, determining that Illinois courts did have jurisdiction to review and confirm the arbitrator's award because Illinois was the situs of the arbitration hearings. The court based its decision on the Indiana trial court's finding that Indiana lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear NICTD's petition for review of the arbitrator's purported errors.

On April 12, 1995, NICTD filed a motion to modify or vacate the arbitration award in the Illinois trial court. On September 6, 1995, the trial court entered an order striking, as untimely, NICTD's motion to modify or vacate the arbitration award. On October 30, 1995, NICTD was granted leave to file its response brief to SouthShore's motion to confirm the arbitration award. The response asked the trial court, inter alia, to stay any confirmation of the arbitrator's award pending a complete adjudication of the complaint for declaratory judgment, which was then before the Indiana Court of Appeals. In the alternative, NICTD sought a hearing as to that portion of the arbitrator's award dealing with the MOW fee. On November 6, 1995, the Illinois trial court refused to stay the proceedings or to allow a hearing on the MOW fee. The court entered its judgment confirming the arbitration award on December 20, 1995. NICTD filed a notice of appeal from this judgment.

Subsequent to the Illinois trial court's entry of judgment, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the Indiana trial court and held that Indiana courts did have subject matter jurisdiction and that, under Indiana law, the arbitrator's decision should have been reviewed by the Indiana courts. Based on the Indiana Court of Appeals decision, NICTD filed a petition to vacate or modify the Illinois trial court's December 20, 1995, order. The Illinois trial court denied the petition on July 24, 1996. NICTD then filed a second notice of appeal. Both appeals have been consolidated.

ANALYSIS
I

NICTD first contends that the Illinois court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to confirm the underlying arbitration award. SouthShore argues that the Illinois court has jurisdiction under the Illinois Uniform Arbitration Act (the Act) 710 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 1992).

Subject matter jurisdiction gives the right to hear and determine causes. Fredman Brothers Furniture Co. v. Department of Revenue, 109 Ill.2d 202, 215, 93 Ill.Dec. 360, 486 N.E.2d 893 (1985). The subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court to review an arbitration award is limited and circumscribed by statute. The parties may not, by agreement or otherwise, expand that limited jurisdiction. Konicki v. Oak Brook Racquet Club, Inc., 110 Ill.App.3d 217, 224, 65 Ill.Dec. 819, 441 N.E.2d 1333 (1982). Judicial review is limited because the parties have chosen the forum and must therefore be content with the informalities and possible eccentricities of their choice. Konicki, 110 Ill.App.3d at 223, 65 Ill.Dec. 819, 441 N.E.2d 1333.

Specifically, NICTD argues that Illinois did not have jurisdiction to confirm the award because the arbitration agreement explicitly sets forth:

"If either party claims that the arbitrator's decision is based upon an error of law, it may, within 30 days after receipt of such decision, institute an action at law within the State of Indiana to determine such legal issue. All arbitration proceedings shall take place within the State of Indiana and shall be governed by the rules of the American Arbitration Association.

* * *

This agreement is to be interpreted pursuant to the laws of the State of Indiana.

* * *

It is intended that the subject matter hereof shall be embodied in definitive agreements to be prepared and executed by the parties subsequent to the date hereof. However, pending execution of such definitive agreements, this Agreement shall be deemed binding and enforceable and shall reflect the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, superseding any prior agreements or understandings."

NICTD asserts that, based on the above provisions, the parties clearly intended that any judicial proceedings ancillary to the arbitration process be brought in the State of Indiana.

SouthShore contends that, because section 17 of the Act provides that any application to court "shall...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Northern Indiana Commuter Transp. Dist. v. Chicago SouthShore
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 8 d1 Setembro d1 1997
    ...trial court's decision exercising jurisdiction and confirming the award. Chicago SouthShore and South Bend R.R. v. Northern Indiana Commuter Transp. Dist., 289 Ill.App.3d 533, 224 Ill.Dec. 595, 682 N.E.2d 156 (1997), reh'g denied. Most recently, a "certificate of importance" was issued by t......
  • Hl 1 Llc v. Riverwalk Llc
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 10 d4 Março d4 2011
    ...that provided by [the Uniform Arbitration Act as adopted by North Dakota]”); Chicago SouthShore & S. Bend R.R. v. N. Ind. Commuter Transp. Dist., 289 Ill.App.3d 533, 224 Ill.Dec. 595, 682 N.E.2d 156, 159 (1997), rev'd on other grounds, 184 Ill.2d 151, 234 Ill.Dec. 395, 703 N.E.2d 7 (1998) (......
  • James Valley Grain Llc v. David
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 18 d4 Agosto d4 2011
    ...Constr. & Bldg. Supply Co., 402 Pa. 81, 166 A.2d 269 (1960)). See also Chicago SouthShore and South Bend R.R. v. Northern Indiana Commuter Transp. Dist., 289 Ill.App.3d 533, 224 Ill.Dec. 595, 682 N.E.2d 156, 162 (1997), rev'd on other grounds, 184 Ill.2d 151, 234 Ill.Dec. 395, 703 N.E.2d 7 ......
  • People v. Arce
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 30 d1 Junho d1 1997
    ... ... 335] Steven R. Decker, Chicago, for appellant ...         Jack ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Agreements to expand the scope of judicial review of arbitration awards.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 63 No. 1, September 1999
    • 22 d3 Setembro d3 1999
    ...the FAA, even if interstate commerce is involved. See Chicago Southshore & South Bend R.R. v. Northern Ind. Commuter Transp. Dist., 682 N.E.2d 156, 160 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1997), vacated on other grounds, 703 N.E.2d 7 (Ill. 1998) (stating the Illinois trial court had jurisdiction o......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT