# Wood v. Zapata Corp.

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · June 29, 1973 · 482 F.2d 350

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8890683

## Case

- **Full name:** A. Jarvis WOOD, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated shareholders of The Granby Mining Company Limited, and on behalf of the Granby Mining Company Limited, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, on behalf of itself and all similarly situated shareholders of Granisle Copper Limited v. ZAPATA CORP., and Honorable Daniel H. Huyett, 3rd United States District Judge, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Nominal
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** June 29, 1973
- **Citations:** 482 F.2d 350
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Adams
- **Judges:** Adams, Biggs, Kalodner
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8890683

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that “there is no procedural rule or decisional authority requiring a district court to permit discovery in connection with a transfer motion or to postpone disposition of the transfer until completion of discovery proceedings”

## Opinion text

ADAMS, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur with the result reached by Judge Kalodner denying the petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition.
The dissent points out that the trial judge here, in ordering transfer of the underlying action, made such order after an untranscribed “informal argument held in Chambers” and did so without making findings of fact or conclusions of law in support of said order. Like the dissent, I find each of these omissions troubling.
In matters of the importance of a motion to transfer, I think it would be most salutary if a hearing were held. Nevertheless, local Rule 36 of the United *358 States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania does not require that hearings be held on motions. However, if a hearing or conference is held, I respectfully suggest that such proceedings be transcribed. Only from a written record can the fairness of a hearing or conference be reviewed. Only from a written record can an appellate court be fully apprised of all the factors which entered into the district court’s decision.
Concededly, Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure makes unnecessary findings of fact and conclusions of law on decisions of motions. See Solomon v. Continental American Life Insurance Co., 472 F.2d 1043, 1048 (3d Cir. 1973). Nevertheless, this Court has recently stated, “it would he helpful to us if each transfer order set forth the factors upon which the court relied in deciding the motion.” id. Indeed, such statement is, at times, quite important to effective appellate review.
However, I do not believe, at least at this time, that the trial judge’s failure to have the proceeding transcribed or to make appropriate findings meets the restrictive test necessary to justify this Court’s issuance of a writ of mandamus or prohibition. See Interpace Corporation v. City of Philadelphia, 438 F.2d 401 (3d Cir. 1971). Accordingly, I concur in the denial of the petition.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8890683. Public record. Not legal advice.