creating the Board the provisions of Title 9 of the United States Code to the extent not inconsistent with the Act, are made applicable to the arbitration proceeding. Title 9 does not provide for judicial review of preliminary rulings of an arbitration board prior to making of its award. The only provision of Title 9 for judicial review of the proceedings of an arbitration board is § 10, which provides that the court may vacate an award on certain grounds enumerated, including misconduct of the arbitrators in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy or any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced, or the arbitrators' exceeding their powers or imperfectly executing them. Hence, this court is without authority to review the validity of the rulings complained of prior to the making of the award by the Board of Arbitrators.
Since it is conceded that the arbitrators were appointed pursuant to Private Law 495 and have endeavored to proceed with the arbitration, the other sections of Title 9 providing for recourse to the court, cited by counsel for plaintiffs in his argument, are inapplicable.
As a general rule, 'administrative orders are not reviewable unless and until they impose an obligation, deny a right or fix some legal relationship as a consummation of the administrative process.' Chicago & Southern Air Lines v. Waterman Corp., 1948, 333 U.S. 103, 112-113, 68 S. Ct. 431, 437, 92 L. Ed. 568. 'Where the intent of Congress is clear to require administrative determination, either to the exclusion of judicial action or in advance of it, a strong showing is required, both of inadequacy of the prescribed procedure and of impending harm, to permit short-circuiting the administrative process.' Aircraft & Diesel Equipment Corp. v. Hirsch, 1947, 331 U.S. 752, 773-774, 67 S. Ct. 1493, 1504, 91 L. Ed. 1796. Once the right of an administrative agency to hold hearings is established, a litigant cannot enjoin them merely because he wishes to avoid future litigation or the hearings may be inconvenient or embarrassing. Allen v. Grand Central Aircraft Co., 1954, 347 U.S. 535, 540, 74 S. Ct. 745, 98 L. Ed. 933, and cases there cited.
The Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2201, 2202, does not enlarge the jurisdiction of this court to permit judicial review of preliminary rulings before final action of an administrative body, since that Act does not confer jurisdiction over cases in which it did not exist before the Act. Hanes v. Pace, 1953, 92 U.S.App.D.C. D.C. 131, 203 F.2d 225.
For the foregoing reasons, the complaint does not state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.
The complaint, as it stands, fails to name indispensable parties, namely, Willard J. Luff and John W. Slacks, shown by Senate Report 1458 to have been partners in Willmore Engineering Company at the time Willmore's claim against the Government arose, and the third member of the Arbitration Board, Eugene D. Hegarty, all of whom would be directly affected by any relief granted in this action.
In view of the statement of plaintiffs' counsel during the course of his argument on the motion to dismiss that he would amend to add any parties held by the court to be indispensable, the court will grant plaintiffs leave to add such parties defendant, but will grant the motion to dismiss the complaint on its merits.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.