Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc. v. Foley

237 F.2d 164

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1956-10-05
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. Petitioners, hereafter generally referred to as Pioche, seek mandate to compel the respondent court and judge to dismiss an “amended supplemental complaint,” which was filed by Fidelity (plaintiff below and intervener here) subsequent to our decisions and mandates on prior appeals in this case. The district judge refused to rule on Pioche’s motion to dismiss the aforesaid amended supplemental complaint. Instead, he postponed action thereon until the time of trial. Our opinions and orders on the prior appearances here of the controversy between Fidelity and Pioche are published in Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc. v. Foley. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
3 opinions
PIOCHE MINES CONSOLIDATED v. FOLEY,237 F.2d 164(9th Cir. 1956)
PIOCHE MINES CONSOLIDATED, Inc., Pioche Mines Company and John Janney,
Petitioners, v. Hon. Roger T. FOLEY, as Chief Judge of the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada, and the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada, Respondents.
No. 15198.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
October 5, 1956.
Page 165
Bradford Bosley, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioners.

William J. Forman, Reno, Nev., Thomas B.K. Ringe, J. Tyson Stokes, Philadelphia, Pa., Woodburn, Forman, Wedge, Blakey Thompson, Reno, Nev., Morgan, Lewis Bockius, Philadelphia, Pa., for intervenors Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co.
Before STEPHENS, HEALY, and BONE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners, hereafter generally referred to as Pioche, seek mandate to compel the respondent court and judge to dismiss an "amended supplemental complaint," which was filed by Fidelity (plaintiff below and intervener here) subsequent to our decisions and mandates on prior appeals in this case. The district judge refused to rule on Pioche's motion to dismiss the aforesaid amended supplemental complaint. Instead, he postponed action thereon until the time of trial.

Our opinions and orders on the prior appearances here of the controversy between Fidelity and Pioche are published in Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., v. Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co.,191 F.2d 399;202 F.2d 944; and206 F.2d 336. For an adequate understanding of what the case is about it is essential that the reader consult those opinions and rulings.

In the earliest of them we held that the supplemental complaint there interposed was tantamount to an amendment of the original complaint, and that the original complaint became merged therein. Our second opinion ordered the dismissal of the supplemental complaint because of the absence of indispensable parties. No leave was given to join indispensable parties. Our mandate commanded that "proceedings be had in said cause, in conformity with the opinion and judgment of this court." Clearly, we intended that Fidelity file no more complaints, however, denominated, in this action.

A writ of mandate will issue directing respondent court and judge to dismiss the amended supplemental complaint.