Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

President v. Marriott, 93-2240 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 93-2240 Visitors: 19
Filed: May 12, 1994
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: May 11, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT _________________________ No. 93-2240 PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE, Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. MARRIOTT HOTELS, INC., Defendant, Appellant. ___ ___ Vacated and remanded.
USCA1 Opinion






May 11, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

_________________________

No. 93-2240

PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE,

Plaintiffs, Appellees,

v.

MARRIOTT HOTELS, INC.,

Defendant, Appellant.

_________________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

_________________________

Before

Selya, Circuit Judge,
_____________

Coffin and Bownes, Senior Circuit Judges.
_____________________

_________________________

Gordon P. Katz, with whom Ieuan G. Mahony and Sherburne,
_______________ ________________ __________
Powers & Needham, P.C. were on brief, for appellant.
______________________
Richard W. Renehan, with whom Timothy Veeser, Hill & Barlow,
__________________ ______________ _____________
and Robert B. Donin were on brief, for appellees.
_______________

_________________________



_________________________
























Per Curiam. We are unable to find any cognizable basis
Per Curiam.
__________

in the record to support the district court's spontaneous

decision to rule upon a motion it had previously agreed to hold

in abeyance for the time being. We are similarly puzzled by the

court's unexplained denial of the motion in question, namely,

appellant's motion to compel arbitration and stay judicial

proceedings. Because it is readily evident that the district

court never addressed the merits of the motion, we summarily

vacate the denial order, see 1st Cir. R. 27.1, and remand the
___

case to the lower court with directions to hear and determine the

motion in the ordinary course, affording substantive

consideration to the question of arbitrabilty vel non.
___ ___





Vacated and remanded. Costs in favor of appellant.
Vacated and remanded. Costs in favor of appellant.
____________________ ___________________________
























2







Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer