Court Opinion

ID: 9452905
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:56:19.145451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:24.869127
License: Public Domain

Supplemental Opinion Following Petition for Rehearing
Before Wilbur K. Miller, Senior Circuit Judge and Danaher and Tamm, Circuit Judges, in Chambers.
PER CURIAM:
In our original opinion we said enough to demonstrate the existence of a close question respecting our jurisdiction. Others of our colleagues are of the view that, in some situations at least, jurisdiction will lie.1 After our opinion had been issued as of February 10, 1967, the appellant sought rehearing which, not unnaturally was opposed by the appellee. Even so, we have reviewed the claims of the parties both with respect to rehearing and as originally urged.
We proceed now upon the assumption that the case is properly here. From the record under review it is obvious that the appellee had sought damages alleging breach of contract. The appellant had filed its counterclaim after its motion to enforce an arbitration agreement had in one form or other been argued and denied by each of several District Judges. The net effect of the action sought by the appellant in the District Court would have been to cause that court to stay its own hand respecting the appellant’s own counterclaim.
We see no abuse of discretion on the part of the District Court in its denial of the appellant’s motion to refer the claims at issue to an arbitrator. Moreover, we see no reason why the case cannot be tried.
The appellee had sought damages for amounts allegedly due as unpaid balances arising from performance of a subcontract and for certain extra work. The appellant had filed its counterclaim for alleged breach of the subcontract by reason of delay and for damages allegedly due on that account. It seems apparent *270that the conflict is such that the case is not one for summary judgment, and the issues of fact may very properly be resolved in a trial.
Since we are not convinced that the District Court erred in declining to enforce arbitration and in denying the appellant’s motion for a stay, the orders appealed from are
Affirmed.

. Travel Consultants, Inc. v. Travel Management Corp., 125 U.S.App.D.C. 108, 367 F.2d 334 (1966), cert, denied 386 U.S. 912, 87 S.Ct. 861, 17 L.Ed.2d 785 (1967). We need not pause to undertake an analysis of certain factors which might be said to distinguish the instant case from the issue presented in Travel Consultants. Of. Switzerland Cheese Ass’n v. Horne’s Market, 385 U.S. 23, 87 S.Ct. 193, 17 L.Ed.2d 23 (1966).