NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 22, 2017*
Decided March 2, 2017
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 16‐1855 Appeal from the
United States District Court
JAMES CHELMOWSKI, for the Northern District of Illinois,
Plaintiff‐Appellant, Eastern Division.
v. No. 14 C 7283
AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, James B. Zagel,
Defendant‐Appellee. Judge.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
No. 16‐3539 Appeal from the
United States District Court
JAMES CHELMOWSKI, for the Northern District of Illinois,
Plaintiff‐Appellant, Eastern Division.
v. No. 15 C 10980
AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, Edmond E. Chang,
Defendant‐Appellee. Judge.
* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is
unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP.
P. 34(a)(2)(C).
Nos. 16‐1855 & 16‐3539 Page 2
O R D E R
These appeals are successive to Case No. 15‐1292. We have consolidated them for
decision and now summarily affirm.
In the earlier appeal, we affirmed the district court’s order denying James
Chelmowski’s motion to vacate an arbitration award. Chelmowski initiated arbitration
proceedings against AT&T accusing the cell‐phone carrier of failing to “port,” or
transfer, his cell‐phone number when he switched to another carrier. He also alleged that
AT&T improperly deleted some of his voicemails. An arbitrator ruled against him. The
district judge denied Chelmowski’s motion to vacate the award and granted AT&T’s
motion to confirm it. On appeal Chelmowski did not challenge the merits of that ruling
but instead lodged several complaints about the judge’s procedures for handling the
matter. We found no error and affirmed. Order, Chelmowski v. AT&T, No. 15‐1292 (7th
Cir. Sept. 25, 2015).
In the first of the successive appeals—Case No. 16‐1855—Chelmowski seeks
review of the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion to reopen the judgment. See FED. R. CIV. P.
60(b). The motion was nothing more than an effort to relitigate matters conclusively
resolved by the arbitrator based on events postdating the arbitration and other
irrelevancies. The judge properly denied it. We summarily affirm.
The second of the successive appeals—Case No. 16‐3539—seeks review of an
order from a different district judge denying Chelmowski’s motion to vacate a second
arbitration award involving the same essential dispute with AT&T. In the second
arbitration, Chelmowski again sought to relitigate matters already resolved against him
and predictably lost on preclusion grounds. The judge confirmed the award. He was
right to do so. The new arbitration was obviously barred by preclusion doctrine.
Chelmowski had no basis to argue that the arbitrator committed misconduct, 9 U.S.C. §
10(a)(3), or exceeded her powers, id. § 10(a)(4), but that did not stop him, and the judge
quite properly rejected these arguments. We summarily affirm.
Because these appeals appear to be frivolous, we order Chelmowski to show
cause why sanctions should not be imposed under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure. His response is due within 14 days from the date of this order.