Filed: Jun. 03, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-3-2004 D'Iorio v. Majestic Lanes Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential Docket No. 03-1788 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004 Recommended Citation "D'Iorio v. Majestic Lanes Inc" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 568. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/568 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Op
Summary: Opinions of the United 2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-3-2004 D'Iorio v. Majestic Lanes Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential Docket No. 03-1788 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004 Recommended Citation "D'Iorio v. Majestic Lanes Inc" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 568. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/568 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opi..
More
Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-3-2004
D'Iorio v. Majestic Lanes Inc
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential
Docket No. 03-1788
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"D'Iorio v. Majestic Lanes Inc" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 568.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/568
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
PRECEDENTIAL (Filed June 3, 2004)
___________
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Anthony S. McCaskey, Esq. (Argued)
___________ Peter B. Van Deventer, Jr., Esq.
St. John & Wayne
No. 03-1788 Two Penn Plaza East
___________ Newark, NJ 07105
Counsel for Appellant
JOHN D'IORIO;
DIANE D'IORIO
Scott K. McClain, Esq. (Argued)
v. Winne, Banta, Hetherington & Basralian
25 Main Street
MAJESTIC LANES INC., Court Plaza North
a New Jersey Corporation, Hackensack, NJ 07602
Counsel for Appellee
Appellant ___________
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED ___________
STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
OF NEW JERSEY
Under Alternative Dispute Resolution
(D.C. No. 01-cv-00809) Act of 1998 (“the Act”), 28 U.S.C. § 651
District Judge: The Honorable et seq., District Courts must enact local
Harold A. Ackerman rules authorizing “the use of alternative
___________ dispute resolution processes in all civil
actions” in accordance with the Act’s
ARGUED MARCH 9, 2004 provisions. 28 U.S.C. § 651(b). The
District of New Jersey complied with this
Before: SLOVITER and command and enacted N.J. L. Civ. R.
NYGAARD, Circuit Judges, and 201.1(h)(1), which reads:
OBERDORFER, District Judge*
Any party may demand a trial de
novo in the District Court by filing
with the Clerk a written demand,
containing a short and plain
*. Hon. Louis F. Oberdorfer, Senior statement of each ground in support
District Judge, United States District thereof, and serving a copy upon all
Court for the District of Columbia, counsel of record or other parties.
sitting by designation.
Such a demand must be filed within inconsistent, and in so holding will reverse
30 days after the arbitration award the judgment of the District Court.
is filed and service is accomplished
I.
by a party pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§[657], or by the Clerk (whichever John D’Iorio alleges that he slipped
occurs first) . . . . Withdrawal of a and fell at a bowling alley owned by
demand for a trial de novo shall Majestic Lanes and sued Majestic in the
reinstate the arbitrator’s award. United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey. The Court referred the
(emphasis added).
lawsuit to compulsory arbitration pursuant
to New Jersey Local Rule 201.1.
Section 657(c) of the Act reads: D’Iorio prevailed in arbitration and was
awarded $274,488. The award was filed in
Trial de novo of arbitration awards. --
the District Court on May 2, 2002. The
(1) Time for filing demand. – very next day, D’Iorio filed a demand for
Within 30 days after the filing of an a trial de novo. Following the passage of
arbitration award with a district the thirty-day limitation on demands for
court under subsection (a), any arbitration, D’Iorio filed a document styled
party may file a written demand for as a “Notice of Withdrawal of Demand for
a trial de novo in the district court. Trial De Novo,” requesting that the District
Court withdraw his demand for a trial de
(2) Action restored to court docket.
novo and reinstate the arbitration award.
– Upon a demand for a trial de
Majestic sent a letter to the District Court
novo, the action shall be restored to
objecting to the reinstatement of the
the docket of the court and treated
arbitration award. However, the District
for all purposes as if it had not
Court had already granted D’Iorio’s
been referred to arbitration.
motions, and had entered judgment in his
28 U.S.C. § 657(c) (emphasis added) favor in the amount of the arbitrator’s
award.
Then, Majestic filed its own demand
Majestic argues that by allowing
for a trial de novo to which D’Iorio
D’Iorio to resurrect his arbitration award
objected. Upon instructions from the
by withdrawing his demand for a trial de
District Court, Majestic also filed a formal
novo, the emphasized portion of Rule
motion to strike the reinstatement of the
201.1(h)(1) is inconsistent with § 657(c)’s
arbitration award and the entry of
requirement that once a demand for a trial
judgment. The District Court denied this
is made, the action be treated “for all
motion, but granted D’Iorio’s cross-motion
purposes as if it had not been referred to
to strike Majestic’s demand for a trial de
arbitration.” We agree, hold that it is
novo, because Majestic had not filed it
2
“within thirty days after the filing of [the] been an arbitration proceeding, the nature
arbitration award.” It is from this order or amount of any award, or any other
that Majestic appeals.1 matter concerning the conduct of the
arbitration proceeding [unless that
II. evidence is otherwise admissible or is
We need not labor long on this issue. stipulated to by the parties.]”).
It is axiomatic that the local rules of a D’Iorio attempts to elide this patent
District Court must be consistent with Acts inconsistency by arguing that all Majestic
of Congress. Fed. R. Civ. P. 83(a)(1); see had to do to make this situation equitable
also In re Kool, Mann, Coffee & Co., 23 was file its own demand for a trial de novo
F.3d 66, 68 (3d Cir. 1994). The plain within the thirty-day period provided in
language of § 657(c) is that once “a both the local rules and § 657(c)(1). This
demand for a trial de novo” is made, “the argument is true, but misses the point.
action shall be restored to the docket of the First, Majestic is entitled to the assurances
court and treated for all purposes as if it of the Act that once D’Iorio filed his
had not been referred to arbitration.” 28 demand for a trial de novo, the arbitration
U.S.C. § 657(c)(2) (emphasis added). award was a nullity, and the cause would
Local Rule 201.1(h)(1) permits a party to be tried. Second and equally as important,
demand a trial de novo and then withdraw that Majestic may have been able to
that demand at any time. Such a protect itself from the inequitable situation
withdrawal results in the reinstatement of created by the operation of Rule
the arbitration award. N.J. L. Civ. R. 201.1(h)(1) by filing a prophylactic
201.1(h)(1). Clearly, this procedure does demand for a trial de novo does not
not treat the action as if it had never been address the simple fact that Rule
referred to arbitration, as required by § 201.1(h)(1) is fundamentally inconsistent
657, and contravenes the plain language of with the plain language of § 657(c)(2).
§ 657(c)(2) as well as the clear intent of We hold, as did the Court of Appeals for
that Section to prevent an arbitration the Eleventh Circuit, that “[the language of
award from having any effect on a Section 657(c)(2)] implies that all parties
subsequent trial de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § to the arbitration are treated as if the
657(c)(3) (“The court shall not admit at the arbitration never occurred; thus, once [one
trial de novo any evidence that there has party] filed a demand for a trial de novo,
[the remaining party] was relieved of the
obligation to file such a demand.” CNA
1. We have jurisdiction from this final Fin. Corp. v. Brown, 162 F.3d 1334, 1337
order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and n.3 (11th Cir. 1998).
exercise plenary review over the District
In summary, we hold that the District
Court’s interpretation of the local rules at
Court erred by denying Majestic’s motion
issue. In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig.,
to strike D’Iorio’s request to withdraw his
221 F.3d 449, 458 (3d Cir. 2000).
3
demand for a trial de novo, and by failing
to vacate both the reinstatement of the
arbitration award and the entry of
judgment. We will reverse and remand for
a trial de novo.
4
