Monte v. Southern Delaware County Authority
Decision Date | 08 January 1963 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 32008,32046. |
Parties | John MONTE and Robert Monte, trading as John Monte Company v. SOUTHERN DELAWARE COUNTY AUTHORITY. SOUTHERN DELAWARE COUNTY AUTHORITY v. John MONTE and Robert Monte, trading as John Monte Company. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, By Arlin M. Adams, Philadelphia, Pa., for Southern Delaware Authority.
Truscott, Kline, O'Neill & Howson, By Frank F. Truscott, Philadelphia, Pa., for Monte.
We have before the Court a motion to dismiss and a motion to remand brought by the Southern Delaware County Authority (hereinafter called the Authority).
John Monte and Robert Monte, t/a John Monte Company (hereinafter called Monte) brought Civil Action No. 32008 to confirm an arbitration award under Title 9 U.S.C.A. § 9. Monte also filed Civil Action No. 32046 to remove an action by the Authority brought in the Common Pleas Court of Delaware County to modify, correct or vacate the arbitration award won by Monte.
John Monte Company, a Michigan partnership, engaged in sewer construction, entered into a sewer construction contract with the Authority on October 28, 1958. Monte intended to perform all the work required on this job and pursuant to this intention, Monte moved both men and equipment from Michigan to Pennsylvania. Actual work was begun by Monte on November 22, 1958 and construction was accepted as completed by the consulting engineers on October 4, 1960. The second phase of Monte's contract required a year's maintenance of this sewer project from October 4, 1960 until October 4, 1961. The sewer which Monte constructed was only a part of a system which joined with an outfall sewer to transport sewage to the Delaware River for treatment at the New Castle, Delaware treatment plant. Monte had nothing to do with the outfall sewer system.
Monte attempted to perform the work under the contract, but because of disputes with the consulting engineers Monte was forced to subcontract the work to certain subcontractors. Eventually, these disputes were submitted to arbitration and Monte received a unanimous award from the three arbitrators on August 31, 1962.
Subsequently, these proceedings were instituted by the parties.
Before we begin a discussion of these motions, it is important to a consideration of this unusual matter that we have an understanding of the purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act. The legislative intent of Congress was most ably expressed by Chief Judge Lumbard in Metro Industrial Painting Corp. v. Terminal Construction Co., Inc., 287 F.2d 382, 387 (2 Cir. 1961), cert. den. 368 U.S. 817, 82 S.Ct. 31, 7 L.Ed.2d 24 (1961).
Question No. 1: Does the Pennsylvania Arbitration Act §§ 161-181 prevent the recipient of a statutory award from moving in the Federal Court for confirmation of the award under § 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act? 9 U.S.C.A. § 9.
The applicable section reads as follows:
(Emphasis supplied)
The contract entered into between Monte and the Authority contains a general provision regarding court proceedings. Section 26(c) of the contract provides as follows:
The contract does not provide for any particular court in which the award is to be confirmed. Therefore, if all the other jurisdictional requirements are met, namely: diversity of citizenship, $10,000.00 and commerce, this motion to confirm is properly before this Court. In the case of Hartmann Coal Mining Co., Inc. v. Hoke, 157 F.Supp. 313, 315 (E.D. Pa.1957) Judge Ganey said:
(Emphasis supplied)
The Federal Courts of other jurisdictions are also in accord with this proposition. See Gaddis Mining Co. v. Continental Materials Corp., 196 F.Supp. 860 (D.C. 1961).
We do not have the problem of deciding whether this award was a statutory award or a common law award.1 The contract does not specifically provide for the Arbitration Act of 1927. Section 26(d) of the Agreement provides, inter alia:
"* * * Except as otherwise provided, the arbitration shall proceed under and pursuant to the rules of the State of Pennsylvania, the parties hereby certifying and agreeing that they have read and are familiar with said rules. * * *"
Both of the parties concede that they followed the Act of 1927 in all their arbitration hearings. Also, since the Authority is a Municipal Corporation created under the Municipality Authorities Act of 1945, Article I, 53 P.S. §§ 301 through 322, it is an agent of the State of Pennsylvania. In re Simon's Appeal, 408 Pa. 464, 184 A.2d 695 (1962). The Arbitration Act of 1927 at § 16, 5 P.S. § 176, makes it mandatory that all contracts made by any municipal corporation, etc., shall apply the Arbitration Act of 1927 to any provision for arbitration in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
BLOCK PONTIAC, INCORPORATED v. Candando
...Corp., 274 F.2d 805, 808 (C.A. 2, 1960); Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427, 436, 74 S.Ct. 182, 98 L.Ed. 168 (1953); Monte v. Southern Delaware County Authority, 212 F.Supp. 604, 613 (E.D.Pa., Opinion by Wood, J., 1963). Thus, the fact that a petitioner has expressly or implicitly invoked Title 9 ......
-
Lucas v. Philco-Ford Corporation
...see, e. g., Marine Transit Corp. v. Dreyfus, 284 U.S. 263, 275-76, 52 S.Ct. 166, 169, 76 L.Ed. 282 (1932); Monte v. Southern Delaware County Authority, 212 F.Supp. 604, 613 (E.D.Pa.), reversed on other grounds, 321 F.2d 870 (3d Cir. 1963).5 Nevertheless, as plaintiff candidly concedes in hi......
-
Galt v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company
...statute applicable to the arbitration procedure of the American Institute of Architects. 2 See Monte v. Southern Delaware County Authority, 212 F.Supp. 604, 609-611 (E.D. Pa.1963), reversed on other grounds, 321 F.2d 870, 871-872 (3rd Cir. 1963); Metro Industrial Painting Corp. v. Terminal ......
-
Old Dutch Farms, Inc. v. MILK DRIVERS & DAIRY EMP. U. LOCAL 584
...District of New York and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Monte v. Southern Delaware County Authority, 212 F.Supp. 604 (E.D.Pa.1963); Victorias Milling Co. v. Hugo Neu Corp., 196 F.Supp. 64 (S.D.N. Y.1961); Hall v. Sperry Gyroscope Co. Div. of Spe......