President v. Marriott ( 1994 )

USCA1 Opinion

          May 11, 1994          [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                              _________________________

          No. 93-2240

                      PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE,

                                Plaintiffs, Appellees,

                                          v.

                                MARRIOTT HOTELS, INC.,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                              _________________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                              _________________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________

                      Coffin and Bownes, Senior Circuit Judges.
                                         _____________________

                              _________________________

               Gordon P.  Katz, with  whom Ieuan  G. Mahony  and Sherburne,
               _______________             ________________      __________
          Powers & Needham, P.C. were on brief, for appellant.
          ______________________
               Richard W. Renehan, with whom Timothy Veeser, Hill & Barlow,
               __________________            ______________  _____________
          and Robert B. Donin were on brief, for appellees.
              _______________

                              _________________________



                              _________________________
























                    Per Curiam.  We are unable to find any cognizable basis
                    Per Curiam.
                    __________

          in  the  record  to  support  the  district  court's  spontaneous

          decision to rule upon a  motion it had previously agreed to  hold

          in abeyance for the time being.  We are similarly  puzzled by the

          court's  unexplained denial  of the  motion in  question, namely,

          appellant's  motion  to  compel  arbitration  and  stay  judicial

          proceedings.  Because  it is  readily evident  that the  district

          court  never addressed  the merits  of  the motion,  we summarily

          vacate the denial  order, see 1st  Cir. R. 27.1,  and remand  the
                                    ___

          case to the lower court with directions to hear and determine the

          motion   in   the   ordinary   course,    affording   substantive

          consideration to the question of arbitrabilty vel non.
                                                        ___ ___





                    Vacated and remanded.  Costs in favor of appellant.   
                    Vacated and remanded.  Costs in favor of appellant.
                    ____________________   ___________________________
























                                          2