Opinion ID: 3014122
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: evidence is otherwise admissible or is

Text: 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