01-2558 Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension fund v. Hunt Truck Lines Inc.

Listen to this article

“The record shows that both the action before Judge Nordberg and the action before Judge Shadur, as well as our decision in Hunt I, concerned the procedural propriety of Central States’ original demand and Arbitrator Jaffe’s directive to revise the date of the demand notice. Thus, no previous action has ever addressed Hunt’s ultimate liability under the revised demand. Further, neither party disputes that the subject of the arbitration was the May 31, 1996 original demand only and did not concern a scenario where Hunt chose to disregard payment pursuant to the revised demand. Therefore, we conclude that Hunt’s failure to make payments under the revised demand is a new wrong and thus the causes of action are not identical. Moreover, a final judgment on the merits of Hunt’s ultimate liability under the revised demand is also absent. As Judge Guzman succinctly noted, ‘[t]he thrust of the prior decisions in the district court and the Seventh Circuit was that Central States’ original demand for withdrawal liability was premature and whether the appropriate method to cure this defect could in fact be a revised demand rather than recission. The procedural ramifications of Central States’ premature notice is separate and distinct from the substantive merits of the final withdrawal liability assessment.’

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Guzman, J., Kanne, J.