SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

SeMces of Mead Data Gentrai, Ina i PAGE 5 k 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 30233,, *7 members of an unincorporated body organized to address deficiencies in the Kcal Public School system. Pfiior to Pe Rule 32 dismissal, the trial: court had denied plaintiffs' requests for a temporary restrainin'q order, a three-fudge couct, L*$I and for declaratory Judq ent, The action was originally fined as a class action, but was amended to name only; one .party in interest aftelr the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion• to strike these interrogatories. The Fifth Circuit found the ;dismissal to be an abuse of discretion, particularly in light of the amended complaint which " dropped the class action allegations. 544 F.Zd at 192This abuse of discretion had, as its source an erroneous I;interpretatiun of a Supreme Court decision*. N.A.A.C.P v, Alabama, which the Fifth Circuit corrected. The Fifth Circuit then :. went;:on to review the merits of.i the other rulings. It affirmed the trial court's decisions reqardinq the denial [tf injunctive relief and athree=; udpe court, but reversed and remanded with regarl to the declaratory judgments As, F ir,1 Allied Air. Freed{ht Y. Parr American World Airways, Inc., 35'3 F.Zd 444 (Zd Cir.) , cert. denied 393 U.S. 846 ,19683 ., the Second Circuit reversed the calendarudd�e'S dismissal fttr ;,failure to prosecute, vacated the trial court's stay. pendikQ exhaustion of administrative remedies, and remanded to the tr,1.4, coUr't for further procee'dxngs. Here, C*91 the legal error lay in the 10tia stay. The Se;conct: Ci-rcuit explicitly rejected Fan. Am's contention that the rt, appellate court should :Limit. itself' to reversing; the dismissal: In ' the interests-` Of efficient ,udicial administration, we conclude that ww should review the Interlocutory. stay order in this appeal. frok a final order dol: ssinR the action. ti. V' The error that 1we see in the i"ssuance of the 910 day order and the'. dismissal: under its terms was that requirinq exhaustion of available administrative remedies as a copditid3n precedent to further action in. the ;distftc:t court,, •in. acco-rdance< with the terms of the ,stay, was an erronedus appl�:catit h of the doctrine of primary ;jurisdiction which `imposed# an undue• burden upon Alliep. therefore we consider the merits of appellant's ;argument. that ':the <district court erred i' issue q the interlocutory stay. order. Td a k45. 04r facts: are. directly analogous to the situation in Allied Air (refight: The tIderlyinq rulings :were the basis for the conclusions that l.ed to the dismissa3.. following the? 6diernment:'s pro a5dd course of action would result in revers mq. the Rule 37 dismissal 00.03 and simply remanding fpr further dispos : On premised gn th earlier rulin'q s,, the course of action explicitly rejected by th`e Al. 1- 1 cout't. Presumably, Hend'ler I would continue to be followed as law of the case. If so, Heridle:r I would[ cdpel the trial judge to matcefurther rulinq1- applyirtq erronedius law« 'ghen the ensu trial on the merits was coplete a crrurt en; appellatr� reviEta� wou3.d` again reverse, and yet. another trial ensue. This , is a clear waste of Judicia ; resources. further, since the :matter here turns on er.ror'5 of law rather than. an �di.tagreement over the facts of the particular'vase,: there is no question of transgiission upon 'the appropriate relationship between the tappellaie and triall courts Coopers 8 Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U,S, Z 463 . 476 ti97 ) . !fie believe the approach taken i.n familfaS and Allied; Air F rt+i ,ht is sound. Th tds we must 11review and decide both the -issue of the.NEX !. �. 1:LEXIS ISONEXIS is '� f' ;t