Document: 436 U.S. 493 98 S.Ct. 1939 56 L.Ed.2d 480 GENERAL ATOMIC COMPANYv.Edwin L. FELTER, District Judge, etc., et al. No. 77-1237. May 30, 1978. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner has filed a motion for leave to file petition writ of mandamus and requests that issue the Court First Judicial District, Santa Fe County, N. M., directing court vacate two orders on ground they violated this Court's mandate in General Atomic Co. v. Felter, 434 12, 76, 54 199 (1977). 2 In opinion, we held under Supremacy Clause United States Constitution lacked power enjoin (GAC) from filing prosecuting personam actions against Nuclear Corp. (UNC) federal court. Upon remand, modified its injunction "to exclude terms conditions all Federal Courts other matters mandated be excluded operation said preliminary by opinion Supreme Court, dated October 31, 1977." Shortly thereafter, GAC demand arbitration with UNC issues growing out 1973 uranium supply agreement around which litigation between parties revolves. This demand, American Arbitration Association, relied upon Act, 9 U.S.C. § seq., (1976 ed.), clause agreement. also demands proceedings involving Duke Power (Duke) moved permission cross-claim Commonwealth Edison (Commonwealth). Finally, requested stay own trial respect subject these demands. UNC, addition opposing motion, asked proceedings. 3 On December 16, 1977, issued decision it concluded had waived any right might have because failed timely manner neither nor agreements gave UNC. basis conclusions, Judge Felter following order staying proceedings: 4 "IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED Corporation's Application Order Staying Arbitrations Partial Final Judgment, same hereby is granted. 5 FURTHER further predicated made Defendant Company Plaintiff Corporation proceedings, viz: 6 "A. The Demand November 29, 1977 Association disputes arising Supply Agreement, copy attached GAC's Motion Stay Proceedings, 7 "B. GAC, Case 31-10-0009-76, Charlotte, North Carolina, 8 "C. Gulf, 51-10-0106-74-C Chicago, Illinois, "shall be, each them are, stayed until Provided, however, Judgment shall not, itself, operate preclude asserting claimed rights appropriate judicial 10 DECLARED, DETERMINED ADJUDICATED no arbitrate aforesaid or pending herein Corporation." 11 27, formally denied completion 12 During course our Co., specifically addressed restrictions placed court's previous attempt assert what believed federally guaranteed forums: 13 "What New Mexico described as 'harassment' principally desire defend itself impleading lawsuits brought utilities.11 This, course, something every do Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 14 Act. . pursue remedies take advantage procedures defenses may more restricted state here than Donovan [v. City Dallas, 377 408, 84 1579, 409 (1964)]. courts are fully capable preventing their misuse purposes harassment." U.S., at 18-19, S.Ct., 79. Footnote Felter's new order: 15 "The prevented claims provision proceeding instituted prior issuance, even though granted Commonwealth's Seventh Circuit affirmed. Gulf Oil Corp., 400 F.Supp. 888 (ND Ill.1975), aff'd, 541 F.2d 1263 (7 Cir. 1976). addition, Western Carolina refused injunction, despite contention was an indispensable party such injunction. acknowledged, would proper proceeding. 420 215 (D.C.1976)." 16 again done precisely do: interfere attempts forums views entitlement arbitration.1 Clearly, did not making findings concerning whether contained relevant agreements. Nor prevent court, findings, declining forums. But, demonstrated supra, without unde efforts obtain entitled reason whatsoever. previously held, absolute present 17 As recently reaffirmed Vendo Lektro-Vend 425, 702, 659 (1978), if lower "mistakes misconstrues decree does give full effect mandate, action controlled execute Court." re Sanford Fork & Tool 160 247, 255, 291, 293, 40 L.Ed. 414 (1895). A litigant who, like obtained judgment after lengthy process litigation, several layers courts, should required go through entire execution Court. light matter, inconceivable remand free impede Because comply petitioner's Assuming will now conform promptly vacating modifying extent places restriction whatsoever exercise litigate forums, formal mandamus.2 See Bucolo Adkins, 424 641, 96 1086, 47 301 (1976); Deen Hickman, 358 57, 79 1, 28 (1958). 18 It so ordered. Although stated proceedings," only plausible reading view question "appropriate." We read restricting pursuing Consequently there occasion disturb it.

Category: 8