Court Opinion

ID: 9790291
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:50:08.620669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:27.954976
License: Public Domain

*64DENECKE, C. J.,
specially concurring.
I specially concur to state my reason for joining in the decision of the court that the order directing the parties to proceed to arbitrate is not an appealable order.
In my opinion the applicable statutes do not guide us in determining whether the order should be appealable.
The defense of the Port to the petition to compel arbitration was that the controversy was no longer subject to arbitration. If the Port is dissatisfied with the award of the arbitrator and the judgment entered according to the award, the Port may appeal. In the appeal, the Port may raise the issue that the controversy was not subject to arbitration.
The question we have is whether that issue should be decided now before arbitration. In the absence of statutory direction, the answer must be based upon policy considerations. If we took the issue before arbitration and decided that the Port was correct, a useless arbitration proceeding would be avoided. If we permit the arbitration to proceed, the Port might not be so dissatisfied with the award that they would appeal and an appellate court would never have to hear and decide the issue.
This same policy issue arises in other contexts. When a motion to quash service on the ground that no personal jurisdiction has been obtained is denied, we frequently issue an alternative writ of mandamus, a form of interlocutory appeal, to decide whether the motion was well taken. In so doing we have decided that as a policy matter it is better to decide whether there is personal jurisdiction before the parties go through a trial which may be for naught if the plaintiff prevails, the defendant appeals, and we ultimately decide that the service should have been quashed. State ex rel Ware v. Hieber, 276 Or 124, 515 P2d 721 (1973).
On the other hand, when the trial court has refused to allow a motion for pretrial discovery and the losing party has petitioned us to review that ruling by requesting a writ of mandamus, we have generally refused to hear that issue. We have determined that in the ordinary case of this kind the better policy is to let the trial proceed and if the party *65moving for discovery loses and appeals, we can then decide the issue. This position is taken despite the knowledge that this course may vitiate the trial.
In this case, the parties had agreed at the beginning of their contractual relationship that arbitration was a preferable method of settling any differences that might arise. This choice probably was made in the belief that arbitration was faster, less expensive, and perhaps more apt to reach a satisfactory result than a court proceeding. The first two considerations would be obviated if a court appeal would be necessary to determine if arbitration can commence. In my opinion, the better policy is for the appellate court to withhold passing on the arbitrability of the controversy until and unless the Port appeals from the judgment entered upon the award.