Opinion ID: 198315
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the appointment of a special master

Text: On July 5, 1995, FSC moved for a jury trial. SAIC opposed the motion on the ground that the case was extremely technical in nature and involve[d] construction issues . . . which are beyond the knowledge of the common citizen. (J.A. at 135-36).In response, the court scheduled a conference for December 11, 1995, to address the issues raised by the parties and to explore settlement possibilities. After hearing arguments from both parties, the court denied FSC's motion for a jury trial. In addition, the court determined that the appointment of a [Special] Master [would] be appropriate in this case. (Mins. of 12/11/95 Proceedings). The court granted the parties until January 15, 1996 to submit three candidates for appointment as special master. On March 18, 1996, FSC informed the court that, of all the candidates it contacted, only one -- Engineer Efrahim MuratiMartnez (Murati) -- was willing to serve as a special master in an adversarial proceeding. SAIC never objected to FSC's motion proposing Murati's appointment. Nor did SAIC submit names of candidates for special master. Therefore, after considering his qualifications, the court appointed Murati to serve as special master. Pursuant to Rule 53(c), the court's order of appointment enumerated Murati's rights, powers, and responsibilities as special master. Specifically, the court's order granted the special master all the rights, powers, and duties as provided for a master under Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (J.A. at 158).On June 5, 1996, Murati accepted his appointment. The very next day, SAIC submitted -- for the first time -- its proposed candidate for special master. In its Motion Requesting Appointment of Special Master, SAIC never objected to the court's power to appointa master. Nor did SAIC object to Murati's actual mandate. Rather, the essence of SAIC's objection was that Murati did not have sufficient formal training in structural problems to act as master in this case. (See id. at 162). In its order denying SAIC's motion, the court addressed this issue by stating: Special Master Murati will remain as Master in this case. His performance so far belies any claims by defendant as to his suitability for the post.(Id. at 169). SAIC now argues on appeal that the district court's appointment of a special master in this case violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 53 and Article III of the United States Constitution. Because we conclude that SAIC's failure to object to the district court's appointment of a special master amounts to consent, we do not reach the merits of this claim.