Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 94-30025
IN RE: AMERICAN MARINE HOLDING COMPANY, ET AL.,
Petitioners.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus to
the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
( February 8, 1994 )
Before GARWOOD, SMITH and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
OPINION
In this proceeding, Petitioners1 seek a Writ of Mandamus
directing the district court (1) to conduct a jury trial pursuant
to § 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., and
(2) to grant Petitioners leave of court to file their Second
Amended Answer in Civil Action No. 91-3645, pursuant to Rule 15(a)
of the Fed. R. Civ. P. In a prior appeal and application for Writ
of Mandamus to this Court, West of England Ship Owners Mutual v.
American Marine, 981 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1993), the following
matters were decided as the law of this case:
1The Petitioners are American Marine Holding Company,
Aggregate Barges, Inc., Cajun Crane Company, Bayou Fleet, Inc.,
Frere Company, Modern Barge Company, Grand Marine, Seneca Barge
Company, Inc., Audubon Barges, Inc., Durow Corporation, Dumur
Corporation, Oiseau Brothers, NOE Barge Company and Leslie B.
Durant.

(a)
Upon the consolidation of two separate proceedings2, the
issue of arbitrability became "embedded" in the
consolidated proceeding; and
(b)
The orders compelling arbitration in such consolidated
case were interlocutory in nature, and appeal of those
orders is barred by 9 U.S.C. § 16(b).
Petitioners now urge us to review certain other orders not
involved in the prior appeal under an application for writ of
mandamus. Since the district court did not certify either of these
prior actions for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b),
no interlocutory appeal is available under that statutory
provision; and the only alternative route which applicants might
use is the writ of mandamus. However, as we have said on many
occasions, the writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy reserved
for extraordinary situations. Gulf Stream Aerospace Corp. v.
Mayacamus Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 108 S. Ct. 1133, 99 L. Ed. 2d 296
(1988). Traditionally, federal courts have exercised their
mandamus power only "to confine an inferior court to a lawful
exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise
its authority when it is its duty to do so". Id. at 289, 108 S.
2Civil Action No. 91-3645 in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana, in which the West of England
Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association (Luxembourg) sought an
order compelling arbitration pursuant to the convention on the
recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards (9 U.S.C. §
201; et seq.); and Civil Action No. 91-3798 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, a suit
initially filed by Petitioners in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, No. 91-17709, and removed to
the Federal Court by Notice of Removal filed by the West of England
Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association (Luxembourg).
2

Ct. at 1143. The party seeking mandamus has the burden of
demonstrating a "clear and indisputable right to it". See Gulf
Stream, 485 U.S. at 289, 108 S. Ct. at 1143. Moreover, it is more
than well-settled that a writ of mandamus is not to be used as a
substitute for appeal. See In re Cajun Electric Power Coop, Inc.,
791 F.2d 353, 365-66 (5th Cir. 1986). Petitioners have failed to
carry their burden to establish their entitlement to a writ of
mandamus.
Whether the district court erred in refusing to give
Petitioners a jury trial on the issue of arbitrability or in
refusing to allow Petitioners to file a Second Amended Answer in
one of the consolidated proceedings (and we do not pass in any way
on the merits on those issues) may be raised for appellate review
after the arbitration is completed and a final judgment entered by
the district court confirming such arbitration. In our view, that
is the clear plan and sequence of events which Congress
contemplated in adding § 16 to the Federal Arbitration Act.
Petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.
wjl\opin\94-30025.opn
hrd
3