Mottolese v. Preston
| Decision Date | 20 January 1949 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 21244. |
| Citation | 172 F.2d 308 |
| Parties | MOTTOLESE v. PRESTON et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Sullivan & Cromwell, of New York City (E. H. Sykes and John G. Dorsey, both of New York City, of counsel), for the motion.
Delson, Levin & Gordon, of New York City (Harold F. Levin, Edward Marks and Norman Moloshok, all of New York City, of counsel), opposed.
Before L. HAND, Chief Judge, and SWAN and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
This is a motion to dismiss an appeal from an order which stayed any further proceedings in the action at bar, pending the determination of an action in the Supreme Court of New York. The action at bar is by a shareholder of the San-Nap-Pak Mfg. Co., Inc., on behalf of herself and all other shareholders and in the right of their company, against the company's directors and their confederates for dereliction in the discharge of the directors' duties. It was commenced in the summer of 1948 by the filing of a summons and complaint in the District Court; and the order on appeal was made on motion of one of the defendants. The action in the state court, during whose pendency the judge has stayed the action at bar, is a consolidation of some nine actions brought during the summer of 1947 in the state court by shareholders of the San-Nap-Pak Mfg. Co., Inc., against substantially the same defendants; and the cause of action in these may be assumed to be the same as that in the action at bar. The judge granted the stay — with leave to the plaintiff to move to vacate it upon a new showing — because he considered that a decision in the state action would be conclusive here, and that the stay was required in the interest of convenience and economy.
It is quite true, as the defendant alleges, that the order is no more than a continuance in the action at bar, and not a modern procedural substitute for a decree in chancery, enjoining the prosecution of an action at law. Therefore it is not within the doctrine of Enelow v. New York Life Ins. Co., 293 U.S. 379, 55 S.Ct. 310, 79 L.Ed. 440, and Ettelson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 317 U.S. 188, 63 S.Ct. 163, 87 L.Ed. 176. That it is not a final order needs no argument. For this reason the appeal must be dismissed under our decision in Abbe v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co., 2 Cir., 171 F.2d 387. Nevertheless, we do not wish to be understood as holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief by way of mandamus; and as to that we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mottolese v. Kaufman
...should direct that the motion for a stay be denied and that this action be consolidated with the pending Martini action. 1 Mottolese v. Preston, 2 Cir., 172 F.2d 308. 2 McClellan v. Carland, 217 U.S. 268, 30 S.Ct. 501, 54 L.Ed. 762. 3 McClellan v. Carland, 217 U.S. 268, 282, 30 S.Ct. 501, 5......
-
Lyons v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation
...Co., Ltd., 337 U.S. 254, 69 S.Ct. 1067, 93 L.Ed. 1347, Baltimore Contractors v. Bodinger, 348 U.S. 176, 75 S.Ct. 249, and Mottolese v. Preston, 2 Cir., 172 F.2d 308, it does not seem to me that it would serve any purpose to set out my reasons, especially on a question which at best is open ......
-
Millholland v. Oglesby
...United States v. Richardson (5th Cir.), 204 F.2d 552; Zalatuka v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (7th Cir.), 108 F.2d 405; Mottolese v. Preston (2nd Cir.), 172 F.2d 308. It is 'but a preliminary, inconclusive step on the road toward final disposition of the proceeding on the merits.' Merino v. ......
-
United States v. O'CONNOR
...1951, 191 F.2d 197; our seemingly contrary position, Abbe v. New York, N. H. & H. Ry. Co., 2 Cir., 1948, 171 F.2d 387; Mottolese v. Preston, 2 Cir., 1949, 172 F.2d 308; Zamore v. Goldblatt, 2 Cir., 1953, 201 F.2d 738, has been characterized as "a very peculiar doctrine for a modern court to......