S & M Constructors, Inc. v. Foley Co.
| Decision Date | 16 March 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-1423,92-1423 |
| Parties | S & M CONSTRUCTORS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The FOLEY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Robert J. Andrews, Kansas City, Mo., argued (Ronald L. Kraft, on brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
Kevin E. Glynn, Kansas City, Mo., argued (William J. Debauche, on brief), for defendant-appellee.
Before JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and LOKEN, Circuit Judge.
S & M Constructors, Inc., appeals from an order of the district court denying its motion for a preliminary injunction to halt arbitration proceedings which were scheduled to commence February 25, 1992. S & M has presented a motion for stay pending appeal. We set the motion for oral argument and stayed commencement of arbitration until the motion could be heard. We now deny the motion for stay.
S & M was a subcontractor of Foley Company, which had contracted with the Corps of Engineers to construct defense related facilities requiring security clearances. The project has been completed. The contract between S & M and Foley contained an arbitration clause. Foley's contract with the Corps provided that the contractor would submit claims to the government under the Contract Disputes Act. 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-613. The contract terms were incorporated in the S & M subcontract. S & M filed a notice of arbitration, and Foley asserted counterclaims against S & M. Foley, at S & M's request, has filed claims with the contracting officer under the Contract Disputes Act. Foley filed an application to stay arbitration in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri in the fall of 1991, but this action was evidently dismissed by agreement of the parties. The arbitration was scheduled to commence in February, 1992. On January 23, 1992, S & M filed a petition for a temporary restraining order in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri. A temporary restraining order was entered but was dissolved by that court in an order dated February 10, 1992. The arbitration was then scheduled for February 25, 1992.
On February 14, S & M filed this motion for temporary restraining order in the United States District Court, and a hearing was held in which the district court considered the case as a motion for preliminary injunction against the arbitration proceedings. The district court applied only one of the factors under Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C.L. Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir.1981), whether S & M had demonstrated the strong likelihood of success on the merits. The district court determined that the Contracts Disputes Act does not require that the arbitration be stayed; that S & M had failed to demonstrate that the contracting parties had intended, through the incorporation clause, to require that the Contracts Disputes Act procedures take precedence over arbitration; and that the arbitrators may of course consider the practicalities springing from the arbitration going forward in the face of claims that were asserted under the Contracts Disputes Act. The preliminary injunction was denied.
In deciding S & M's motion for stay pending appeal, we consider the four factors that are employed by the district court in considering preliminary injunctive relief, of which we believe likelihood of success on the merits is most significant. James River Flood Control Association v. Watt, 680 F.2d 543, 544 (8th Cir.1982); Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 107 S.Ct. 2113, 95 L.Ed.2d 724 (1987). S & M relies principally on two district court decisions in arguing that the administrative procedures of the Contract Disputes Act take precedence over arbitration. Grinnell Fire Protection Systems, Inc. v. Regents of the University of California, 554 F.Supp. 495 (D.C., N.D.Cal.1982) stayed consideration of a diversity action asserting contract disputes so that a contractual dispute resolution procedure before the Department of Energy's Contracting Officer could...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arc Iowa v. Reynolds
...should be granted. Minn. Ass'n of Nurse Anesthetists v. Unity Hosp. , 59 F.3d 80, 83 (8th Cir. 1995) (quoting S&M Constructors, Inc. v. Foley Co. , 959 F.2d 97, 98 (8th Cir. 1992) ). The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution ensures that federal law is "the supreme Law of the Land." U.S......
-
Pharm. Care Mgmt. Ass'n v. Tufte, Case No.: 1:17–cv–141
...of the four factors to be considered by the district court in considering preliminary injunctive relief. S & M Constructors, Inc. v. Foley Co., 959 F.2d 97, 98 (8th Cir. 1992). When evaluating a movant's likelihood of success on the merits, the court should "flexibly weigh the case's partic......
-
HEATHER K. BY ANITA K. v. City of Mallard, Iowa
...on appeal also success on the merits), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 578, 130 L.Ed.2d 493 (1994); S & M Constructors, Inc. v. Foley Co., 959 F.2d 97, 98 (8th Cir.) (district court applied only one of the Dataphase factors, likelihood of success on the merits, but the appellate court......
-
Oldham v. Chandler-Halford
...on appeal also success on the merits), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 578, 130 L.Ed.2d 493 (1994); S & M Constructors, Inc. v. Foley Co., 959 F.2d 97, 98 (8th Cir.) (district court applied only one of the Dataphase factors, likelihood of success on the merits, but the appellate court......
-
THE CHRONIC EFFECT OF "KILL THE INDIAN SAVE THE MAN": AN ANALYSIS OF DREAMING BEAR V. FLEMING.
...Inc., 648 F.3d 706, 706 (8th Cir. 2011)). (64.) Dataphase Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d at 113. (65.) S&M Constructors, Inc. v. Foley Co., 959 F.2d 97 (8th Cir. (66.) Id. at 98. Compare id. ("[W]e consider the four factors that arc employed by the district court in considering preliminary injunc......
-
CHAPTER 9 SHOTGUNS, LOCKED GATES, AND INDIGNATION: LITIGATING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN SURFACE USE DISPUTES
...User, such as when two parties both claim rights to lay pipe in the same ground. [12] See, e.g, S&M Constructors, Inc. v. Foley Co., 959 F.2d 97, 98 (8th Cir. 1992); see also La Union Del Pueblo Entero v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 608 F.3d 217, 255 (5th Cir. 2010) ("Because we have deter......