Court Opinion

ID: 9842783
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:18:10.33815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:46.062177
License: Public Domain

DANAHER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) .
Appellant sought a mandatory injunction ordering the appellee to arbitrate a pension dispute and, in the alternative, a declaratory judgment that the defendant’s refusal to arbitrate constituted a breach of the collective bargaining agreement between the parties. Pertinent portions’of the agreements appear of record. Appellee having answered, appellant moved for summary judgment, or for judgment on the pleadings, but ap-pellee filed no cross motion. At the close of the argument the trial judge, treating both of appellant’s -motions as coming within Rule 56, denied them, and orally expressed the opinion “that the action does not lie.” Thereupon the following order was entered:
“This cause came on to be heard on October 24, 1954., on plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment, and thereupon, upon consideration' thereof and of the pleadings, affidavits and memoranda filed in this cause, and the argúment of counsel, and it appearing to the court that the arbitration clause in the contract between the parties which plaintiff seeks to enforce, covers only matters which arise under the contract and can not reasonably be construed to cover proposed changes in the con*21tract, it is by the court this 4th day of November, 1954,
“Ordered, that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment or for judgment on the pleadings be and it hereby is denied.”
This case is not like Morganstern Chemical Co. v. Schering Corp., 3 Cir., 1950, 181 F.2d 160, where the court pointed out that the motion for summary judgment had been denied because of the presence of genuine issues of fact. Here, the trial judge clearly ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to prevail as a matter of law. I am confident that Judge Holtzoff is fully aware that before a movant may be granted a summary judgment, he must establish (1) “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact” and (2) that he is “entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” He chose to predicate his order upon the latter ground, and to me, that order looks “final.” Accordingly, I would go right to the merits. Now that the appeal is being dismissed, and after considerable loss of time and effort, I suspect that some other District judge may decide that the law of the case has been established, and we will have it right back here with additional loss of time and expense.