Document: 352 U.S. 249 77 S.Ct. 309 1 L.Ed.2d 290 Honorable Walter J. LA BUY, Petitioner,v.HOWES LEATHER COMPANY, Inc. and Montgomery Ward & Co., No. 27. Argued Oct. 17 18, 1956. Decided Jan. 14, 1957. Mr. James A. Sprowl, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. Jack I. Levy, respondents. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. These two consolidated cases present a question power Courts Appeals to issue writs manadamus compel District Judge vacate his orders entered under Rule 53(b) Federal Rules Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., referring antitrust trial before master. The petitioner, United States sitting in Northern Illinois, contends that have no such that, even if they did, these were not appropriate ones its exercise. Court Seventh Circuit has decided unanimously it and, by divided court, circumstances surrounding references petitioner required mandamus about which he complains. 226 F.2d 703. importance administration together with uncertainty existing on among Appeals, led our grant writ certiorari. 350 964, 76 439. We conclude properly issued mandamus. 2 History Litigation.—These petitions mandamus, filed arose from actions instituted 1950.1 Rohlfing2 involves 87 plaintiffs, all operators independent retail shoe repair shops. claim plaintiffs against six named defendants manufacturers, wholesalers, mail order houses chain operators—is identical. asserted complaint is conspiracy between 'to monopolize attempt monopolize' fix price supplies sold interstate commerce Chicago area, violation Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1—7, note. allegations also include discrimination charge Robinson-Patman 13, 13a, 13b, 21a. Shaffer3 wholesalers supplies, defendants, including manufacturers shop operator. here charges monopoly fixing Act Act. Both complaints pray injunctive relief, treble damages, an accounting respect discriminatory differentials charged. 3 record indicates had been burdensome In Rohlfing alone, 27 pages are devoted docket entries reflecting conducted many hearings preliminary pleas motions. original twice amended as result court regard misjoinders severance; 14 dismissed prejudice; summary judgment resulted refusal enter some pleadings; over 50 depositions taken; testimony require production inspection records held. It appears several extended included only oral argument but submission briefs, filing opinions memoranda reasonable much time would saved at heard case because familiarity litigation. 4 References Master.—The master made authority Procedure.4 called February 23, 1955, motion reset them trial. was 'No. below black line' list, gave preferred setting. All parties anxious early trial, wished adjournment until May. announced 'it taken long get this issue. I remember hearing more motions, think, than any ever sat court.' estimated take weeks, whereupon stated did know when could try 'if going long.' He asked agree Master hear' it. ignored query conference chambers next day reference sua sponte5. declared "confronted extremely congested calendar' 'exception (sic) conditions exist reason' requiring references. referred evidence report same Court, findings fact conclusions law.' further ordered each 'the shall commence cause' certain date continue diligence, supply security costs. While deposited $8,000 costs, discloses objected motions them. Upon petitioner's references, seeking issuance ordering do so. applications grounded U.S.C. § 1651(a), Writs Act.6 answer show cause amplified reasons stating 'that very complicated complex, considerable try,' 'calendar congested.' Declaring amounted (226 705) 'a (petitioner's) part, judge, causes due course,' concluded 'in view extraordinary nature causes' must be vacated we find beyond court's pertinent rule.' 705, 706. And, being so found, disputed principles considerations propriety apply equally cases. 5 Power Appeals.—Petitioner does extend review interlocutory except those where appeal after final frustrated. Asserting exercise jurisdiction 53(b), urges action can reviewed since congressional enactment appellate Court's may judgment. naked settled As late Roche v. Evaporated Milk Association, 1943, 319 21, 25, 63 938, 941, L.Ed. 1185, Chief Stone decisions considering held common-law writs, like equitable remedies, granted or withheld sound discretion recodification 1948, old 342 377 into affect aid jurisdiction. See Bankers Life Casualty Co. Holland, 1953, 346 379, 382—383, 74 145, 147—148, 98 106. Since stage proceedings entertain appeals cases, proper circumstances, here, reaching Roche, supra, page there cited. This say conclusion reach facts intended, used, authorize indiscriminate use prerogative means reviewing orders. pass on, then, real involved, i.e., whether now us. 6 Discretionary Use Writs.—It heretofore well informed litigation, pleadings parties, gist plaintiffs' claims. aware theory defense proof necessarily outlined various requests discovery, admissions, interrogatories, depositions. arguments dismiss, depositions, fact, knowledge experience field, points dispose litigation greater dispatch less effort anyone else. Nevertheless, both suits general Furthermore, neither existence alleged nor liability vel non determined either case. issues, any, concerning injunction, likewise Under believe justified finding abuse 53(b). They little abdication judicial function depriving basic issues involved 7 masters judges performance specific duties, arise progress cause,' Ex parte Peterson, 1920, 253 300, 312, 40 543, 547, 64 919, displace court. exceptional warrant remedy State Maryland Soper, 1926, 270 9, 30, 46 185, 189, 70 449. pointed out Los Angeles Brush Mfg. Corp. James, 1927, 272 701, 706, 47 286, 288, 71 481: '* * (W)here subject concerns enforcement (r)ules law duty formulate put force,' should prevent thereunder palpably improper place scope rule invoked. said 707 U.S., 289 S.Ct., rules practically nullified hesitate restrain (him) *.' cited 1940 per curiam McCullough Cosgrave, 634, 60 703, 84 992, summarily patent originated largely followed noted grounds inclusive set alleging claimed addition, prolonged illness regular judge other available us fortiori improperly 8 recent contrary. Petitioner cites 106, Parr States, 1956, 351 513, 912. former concern promulgated but, rather, Congress, venue statute. meant used clear 'usurpation power' 383, 148. Certainly, found discretion. case, exceeded refused functions. indictment Government elected prosecute another district new indictment. effect holding merely dismissal first vested judge. 9 contended erroneously construed 'conferring 'roving commission' supervise advance decision.' Our examination leads exercised commendable self-restraint. true resorted extreme places anomalous position litigants without counsel uncompensated volunteers. However, end patience clearly years admonished practice making 'does commend itself' seldom made, unusual exist.' re Irving-Austin Building Corp., Cir., 1938, 100 574, 577. Again, 1942, words 'exception' 'exceptional' elastic terms sole their elasticity. 'Litigants entitled every suit, save shown.' Adventures Good Eating, Inc., Best Places Eat, 131 809, 815. Still disturb reversal October 1955. Duffy Krinsley Artists 235 253, 257, affirmance involving reference, attention too common Illinois what extent full bench District; however, reveal 11 past years. But cloud bring flood's downpour' approve indulged, particularly face presently dockets, increased filings, trials. fully appreciative unfortunate congestion calendar Courts. procedural devices heavily districts proven most helpful reducing congestion. Illustrative techniques provision assignment commissioner handle cases; pleas, pretrial proceedings; separate calendars civil criminal trials reached enumerate example through enlightened techniques. goes saying effectively adaptable problems district. But, may, itself circumstance If test, make rather exception. realizes this, addition alleges complexity law. field complex. follow On contrary, impelling reason regular, experienced temporary substitute appointed ad hoc basis ordinarily work. Nor great length will offer grounds. ground voluminous necessary event prevailed. detailed determine damages suffered plaintiff might over-all provided indicate warranted receiving tabulation. 10 supervisory control federal system. confers discretionary here. Its therefore affirmed. Affirmed. 12 BRENNAN, whom FRANKFURTER, BURTON HARLAN join, dissenting. 13 La Buy's reviewable Appeals. awaited decision way petition addressed directing Buy within bounds Act.1 Only last Term, 912, restated bounds: 'The sparingly exercised. jurisdiction, see Ass'n, 26, one defeated issue, cf. 29—30, Here courts erred ruling matters thwart policy piecemeal appeals. 943.' 520, 917.2 outside limitations. 'not Procedure 'some condition' reference.3 (court) (its) jurisdiction.' 'exceptional give weight caveat 'reference exception rule,' mere error (the Court's) Such play writ. 'where issue.' suffer added expense possible delay obtaining consequence settles inconvenience Congress contemplated providing judgments reviewable.'4 16 regrettable approval consider departure governing says grave concern. think today seriously undermined long-standing statutory My brethren say: 'Since orders.' understand mean because, heard, opportunity relieve burden reference. bridge crossed Alkali, rejected: 'Here results alone judgment, power, it, correct.' 31, 944. What saying, therefore, always understood precisely auxiliary protect conferred provisions law, e.g., 1291, 1291,5 specified classes 1292, 1292.6 given discards constraints upon Parr, doing so, opens wide crack door which, Judiciary 1789, shut intermediate few 1292. 18 stems 1789.7 Magruder, Josephson, 218 174, provides invaluable history development scope. demonstrates persuasively tht '(t)he section confer power; strictly nature, sharply 29—31, 938 (943—944). *' 180. 19 focal posed tends frustrate impede ultimate affirmative where, example, transfers circuit decision. That First transferring Appeals' declined proceed determination eventually come 'final decision'.'8 181. contrast, denying transfer umbrella retention hardly tend defeat distinction denial recognized Carr Donohoe, 201 426, Eighth denied directed circuit. nonappealable nowise impairing actual potential decision, observing: 'It seems obvious (another circuit) cannot impair appealable case.'9 428 429. 20 reliance 481, is, my opinion, misplaced. Those writs. Magruder took pains emphasize 'caution Supreme least prior supporting issuance, lower safely relied latter exercising different sort section.' 179. 'different derived granting usages law.10 provision, unlike restricted aiding deemed broader 21 particular pursuant agreement appoint hear regardless situation same. delimited confronted persistent disregard prescribed 22 key language 288: 23 equity force, merits, deal directly conform them.' (Emphasis added.) 24 words, accepted undertook absence 234 of' limitation contained 1651, anything approaching wholesale there. subscribe Magruder's Josephson: 25 'Contrary occasionally taken, sub silentio assumed, appeals, 1651 (28 1651) Act) grants roving commission justice circuit, unappealable immediately interest justice.' 177. 26 although broad orders,' engrafts procedure standard never embraced throughout history, written English Judicature Act11 varying degrees States.12 allows leave compromise conflicting viewpoints allowed.13 limited stresses reviews strong public favor single complete review. view, New York allowing right perceives danger injustice individual trial.14 polestar 'finality,' meaning await level. 'Finality condition historic characteristic procedure. departed observance all.' Cobbledick 323, 324—325, 540, 541, 783. shatters policy. protest, invade domain reserved Constitution exclusively Congress,15 encouragement offered aggravate already bad add work busiest More review, add, course, courts. Meanwhile concerned delayed while mark awaiting petitioners. Rarely terminate Moreover, become longer older decided. This, interposes obstacle better improved administration.16 correct 1291. assuming nonexistent Insofar approves error, respectfully dissent. Cat's Paw Rubber D.C.N.D.Ill., F.R.D. Shaffer 99 F.Supp. 886. figures indicated refer number When originally defendants. provides: '(b) Reference. A rule. tried jury, complicated; account, showing requires it.' active practitioner comment Vanderbilt work, Cases Materials Modern Judicial Administration (1952) 1240—1241, states: 'There special getting singled condemnation, all-too-prevalent habit sending There effective putting sleep indefinite period permit go busy lawyer referee. drastic administrative rule, rigidly enforced, limiting weekly reports rout inveterate enemy cases.' '(a) established respective jurisdictions agreeable 1651(a). Cf. Cas. 106; Fahey, 332 258, 67 1558, 91 2041. objection Vanderbilt, quoted footnote majority reflected Jersey Revised 4:54—1, follows: 'No matter master, Justice, taking deposition, standing Court.' consent chief outside, correction vital framed vests 943. Alkali Export Ass'n 325 196, 202 203, 65 1120, 1124—1125, 89 1554. direct Section substance, relating injunctions, receivership, admiralty infringement Stat. 81, substantially re-enacted 262 Code 1911, 36 1162. Accord, Wiren Laws, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 105, 194 873; Gulf Research Development Harrison, 185 457. Josephson thing: 'If transfer, preserved, frustrated, had; loss how pretense 'aid' 80, 1156. 1925, Geo. 5, c. 49, 31(1)(i). E.g. Miss.Code Ann., 1148; N.J.Rev.Rules 2:2—3. discussion Jacobs Appeal Pennsylvania R. N.J. 398, 120 A.2d 94; Crick, Final Judgment Basis Appeal, 41 Yale L.J. 539; Note, Col.L.Rev. 1102; 58 1186; Report, Special Meeting Conference p. (March 20—21, 1952); Regular Annual (1953). N.Y.Civ.Prac.Act, 609. U.S.Const., Art. III, 1. seriousness problem state prompted Attorney General May call delay. appointment distinguished committee frontal attack problem. Rogers, Towards Eliminating Delayed address prepared delivery Mid-Atlantic Regional American Bar 11,

Category: 8