SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

r ServicQs�i'Mead Data Genual; Inc. _..� r. r r + FAGE 5 . 1991 U.S,. App. LEXIS 30233, *7 members of an unincorporated body organized to, address deficiencies in floe local public school system. Prior to the Rule 37 dismissal, the trim. court had denied " plaintiffs ' requests fora temporary restraining order, a three- judgecourt, C*83 and; for;.declaratory ;Juqymentlf " The :actian was originally filed as a class action, but was amended toname onlV one part YEln interest after the trial court denied plaintiffs , motion to s rike these ixlterrogatnries. She if Circuit found the dismissal to b� an ...., .. abuse of discreta;on, particularly in light of the amended complaint. which dropped the Class ;attlon allegations. 544 F.2d at 19Z This abuse off%di % scretion had as its source an erroneous interpretation of a Supreme our; t decisiclrt' x tJ A A C.F. v. Alabama, which the Fifth Circuit corrected:.. T.h. Fafth: Cirpu�it then. went on to review the !Merits of the other rulings It affirmed the tris? Court's: decisions regardirtq the dentia. 6.f in junctive relief and a. three-�Iutlge court: but reversed and rxemanded wi th regard to the declaratory fi utiq ent is."ue... :. .In Allied Air Freight v:. Fart Aftriean. World Airway:, I'rtt., 393 F2 441 (2d Clt..) , cert. denied 393 U.S. 54.6 E19681 , the Second GirCuI reversed the :endar fudge? disl�tissal For tilure to prosecute, vadated the trial po rt's shay ponding exhaust on of a dministra;tive remedies, and re»fanded to the trim color: far further proceedings. Here, C*93 the ;e4al error day itt the initial:. stay. the SE'Cand Circuit explicitly rejected Fan Am'a conterttitart that the appellate court should limit: itself to reversingthe dismissal.: is Irl t:hel interests of OffiClent: judicial administration, we, conclude that we. Should review the. interlocutory stay order in this appeal:. from a final orher dismiss nq the action td. at 443» k The error that: we see in the `issuance of the 90 day order and the dismissal under: its terms was that requirin4 exhaustion of available administrative =remedies as a condition precedent to further action in thel district court, in accordance with the terms of the stay, was an erroneous application of the doctrine of primary Jurisdiction which imposed an undue burden upon Allied. Therefore we consider the merits of appellant's arc#untFt1 that the district court erred in issuinq the interlocutory stay order." Id:. at 445 Our facts are directly analogous to the situation in All-ied Air Freight. The underlyirtq rulings were the basis for the conclusions that led to the dismissal. Following the Government's proposed Course of action wouldresult in reversinq tiie Rule"-37 dismissal t*10 and simply remanding for further disposition: premised on the. earlier rulings, the course of action explicitly re ected by the Allied court... Presumably, Hendl,er I would Continue to be followed as law of the cafe. If so, Her dl:er I would compel the trial judge to make further rulinq_5 ap,plyinA erroneous late.. Whehl the ensuing trial on this merits was complete* a court on appellate review would again reverse, and yet another trial ensue. This i a clear waste of ' di. resources. Further, since the matter here tormt n Ar,rors of law rather; than: on: disagreement over the facts of the particuialk case. , there is no questionof transgression upon „the appropriate' relations.h. p ;Ii£ttwe h, the (appellate arid: triad courts . Coopers l� Lybrand Y. Livesay, 437 % U.5, 463, 476 (19771. we believe the approach taken in fantil las and ;A3.lied Ai r Freight is sound. Thu,s:. .we must review and decide both the issue of the. 0 LE'l NE X- IS L EXIS'NE-:Xc S