The trial court may refer issues to a Master for a hearing and report where potentially substantial economic concerns are involved and where expeditious resolution of difficult issues is required. Helene Curtis Industries v. Sales Affiliates, 199 F.2d 732, 733 (2d Cir.1952) (request for mandamus relief to vacate order of reference denied) (pre- LaBuy decision). A Master may be appointed to conduct a comprehensive analysis of highly technical data.
The four judgments entered, respectively, in Civil Actions Nos. 71-280, 71-284, 76-376 and 76-375 will be collectively referred to in this opinion in the singular. D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1954, 121 F. Supp. 490, affirmed, 2 Cir., 1956, 233 F.2d 148, certiorari denied, Sales Affiliates, Inc., v. Helene Curtis Ind., 352 U.S. 879, 77 S. Ct. 101, 1 L.Ed.2d 80. For reported opinions dealing with earlier, procedural phases of this litigation, see Helene Curtis Industries, Inc., v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1952, 105 F. Supp. 886, affirmed, 2 Cir., 1952, 199 F.2d 732. Prior to the issuance of the 710 patent, on August 13, 1949, the inventor McDonough filed a continuation-in-part application (Serial No. 110,239) claiming a smaller group of polar, acidic mercaptan compositions as a valid species claim.
"[G]enerally speaking, a simple case pending in diverse courts may be allowed to go forward simultaneously in each tribunal * * * and prior judicial control or direction is unnecessary if not undesirable." Helene Curtis Industries, Inc., v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., 2 Cir., 1952, 199 F.2d 732. I must consider then whether the facts before me present such compelling circumstances as to warrant, in the interest of "wise, judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation" exercise of judicial discretion to enjoin prosecution of an action otherwise allowable.
105 F. Supp. 886. We affirmed his decision in October 1952, 199 F.2d 732. Hon. Simon H. Rifkind, who served with distinction as District Judge for the Southern District of New York from 1941 to 1950.
D.C., 97 F. Supp. 644, aff'd 2 Cir., 192 F.2d 872. D.C., 105 F. Supp. 886, aff'd 2 Cir., 199 F.2d 732. D.C., 192 F. Supp. 407, aff'd 2 Cir., 291 F.2d 445.
" (p. 52). See, e.g., Helene Curtis Industries, Inc., v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., 2 Cir., 1952, 199 F.2d 732; Remington Products Corp. v. American Aerovap, Inc., 2 Cir., 1951, 192 F.2d 872; Hammett v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc., 2 Cir., 1949, 176 F.2d 145; Crosley Crop. v. Hazeltine Corp., 3 Cir., 1941, 122 F.2d 925, certiorari denied 1942, 315 U.S. 813, 62 S.Ct. 798, 86 L.Ed. 1211. See Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equip. Co., 1952, 342 U.S. 180, 72 S.Ct. 219, 96 L.Ed. 200.
In Helene Curtis Industries v. Sales Affiliates, D.C.S.D.N Y 1952, 105 F. Supp. 886, 900, 2 Cir., 199 F.2d 732, the Court stated a test of discretion in making a joinder under Rule 21 to be: "Will it prejudice the non-moving party? Will it serve to avoid multiplicity of suits?"
In Barclay & Co., Inc., v. Neechi Sewing Mach. Sales Corp., D.C.S.D.N.Y.1951, 101 F.Supp. 515, Judge Ryan held that the patent in issue could not be adjudicated in a declaratory judgment proceeding where its owner was not before the Court. In Helene Curtis Industries, Inc., v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., 2 Cir., 1952, 199 F.2d 732, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that under the ‘ terms of the ‘ assignment,’ defendant retains the right at its own expense to conduct all Patent Office proceedings, to grant licenses, to bring and defend suits at its own expense, and to take the proceeds.' 199 F.2d at page 733.
Thus, prejudice to the non-moving party will defeat a Rule 21 motion. Helene Curtis Indus. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., 105 F. Supp. 886, 900 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 199 F.2d 732 (2d Cir. 1952); accord Lanigan v. LaSalle Nat'l Bank, 108 F.R.D. 660, 663 (N.D.Ill. 1985). In this case, prejudice might result to individual commissioners substituted during an appeal after final judgment since their interests and potential defenses may have differed from those of the CPUC.
Kincade v. Mikles, 144 F.2d 784, 787 (8th Cir. 1944); Gilbert v. General Elec. Co., 347 F. Supp. 1058, 1059-61 (E.D.Va. 1972); Zarate v. State Dep't of Health and Rehab. Serv., 347 F. Supp. 1004, 1006 (S.D.Fla. 1971) (3-judge court), aff'd mem., 407 U.S. 918, 92 S.Ct. 2462, 32 L.Ed.2d 803 (1972); Rekeweg v. Federal Mut. Ins. Co., 27 F.R.D. 431, 435 (N.D.Ind. 1961), aff'd on other grounds, 324 F.2d 150 (7th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 943, 84 S.Ct. 798, 11 L.Ed.2d 767 (1964); see Helene Curtis Indus., Inc. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., 105 F. Supp. 886, 899-900 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd on other grounds, 199 F.2d 732 (2d Cir. 1952); cf. United States v. Louisiana, 354 U.S. 515, 77 S.Ct. 1373, 1 L.Ed.2d 1525 (1957); Torockio v. Chamberlain Mfg. Co., 51 F.R.D. 517, 519 (W.D.Pa. 1970); Adams v. Bell Aircraft Corp., 7 F.R.D. 48 (W.D.N. Y. 1947). But even if we were to follow these cases, they would not support the notice that would be issued in this case.