
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          May 11, 1994          [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                             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
