Intermetals Corporation v. Hanover International Aktiengesellschaft Fur Industrieversicherungen on Appeal From…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 01-3322
INTERMETALS CORPORATION,
Appellant,
v.
HANOVER INTERNATIONAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT FUR
INDUSTRIEVERSICHERUNGEN
___________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
(D.C. Civil No. 01-cv-00200)
District Judge: The Honorable Mary Little Cooper
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 7, 2002
BEFORE: NYGAARD, BARRY, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: June 11, 2002)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Appellant, Intermetals Corporation, appeals from an order of the District
Court which dismissed the action. Appellant alleges as error the issues listed in
paragraph I, taken verbatim from their brief. Because we conclude that the District Court
did not err, we will affirm.
I.
The allegations of error asserted by appellant are as follows:
1. Did the District Court err in construing the language of the forum selection
clause to be exclusive, mandatory, and thus enforceable?
2. Did the District Court err in finding that the forum selection clause was
part of the contract of insurance?

-- 1 of 3 --

II.
The facts and procedural history of this case are well known to the parties
and the court, and it is not necessary that we restate them here. The reasons why we
write an opinion of the court are threefold: to instruct the District Court, to educate and
inform the attorneys and parties, and to explain our decision. None of these reasons are
presented here. We use a not-precedential opinion in cases such as this, in which a
precedential opinion is rendered unnecessary because the opinion has no institutional or
precedential value. See United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Internal
Operating Procedure (I.O.P.) 5.2. Under the usual circumstances when we affirm by not-
precedential opinion and judgment, we "briefly set[] forth the reasons supporting the
court’s decision...." I.O.P. 5.4. In this case, however, we have concluded that neither a
full memorandum explanation nor a precedential opinion is indicated because of the very
extensive and thorough opinion filed by Judge Cooper of the District Court. Judge
Cooper’s opinion adequately explains and fully supports its order and refutes the
appellant’s allegations of error. Hence, we believe it wholly unnecessary to further
opine, or offer additional explanations and reasons to those given by the District Court,
why we will affirm. It is a sufficient explanation to say that, essentially for the reasons
given by the District Court in its opinion dated the 2nd day of August, 2001, we will
affirm.
III.
In sum, for the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of the District
Court dated August 2, 2001.
_________________________
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
/s/ Richard L. Nygaard
Circuit Judge
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 01-3322
___________
INTERMETALS CORPORATION,
Appellant,
v.
HANOVER INTERNATIONAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT FUR
INDUSTRIEVERSICHERUNGEN
___________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-- 2 of 3 --

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
(D.C. Civil No. 01-cv-00200)
District Judge: The Honorable Mary Little Cooper
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 7, 2002
BEFORE: NYGAARD, BARRY, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.
___________
JUDGMENT
___________
This cause came to be considered on the record from the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey and was submitted pursuant to Third Circuit
LAR 34.1(a) on June 7, 2002.
On consideration whereof, it is now here ORDERED AND ADJUDGED
by this Court that the order of the said District Court entered on August 2, 2001, be, and
the same is hereby affirmed.
Costs taxed against appellant
All of the above in accordance with the opinion of this Court.
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Clerk
Dated: 11 June 2002

-- 3 of 3 --