Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Sam Bialac, and Rental Development Corporation of America, an Arizona Corporation, Additional Party v. Harsh Building Co., an Oregon Corporation

Sam Bialac, & Rental Dev. Corp. of Am., an Ariz. Corp., Additional Party v. Harsh Bldg. Co., an Or. Corp., 463 F.2d 1185 (9th Cir. 1972)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-09-12
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • dismissing case where factual stipulation supporting diversity of parties was clearly false

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Sam Bialac, and Rental Development Corporation of America, an Arizona Corporation, Additional Party v. Harsh Building Co., an Oregon Corporation. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
17 opinions
BIALAC v. HARSH BUILDING CO.,463 F.2d 1185(9th Cir. 1972)
SAM BIALAC ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, AND RENTAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
OF AMERICA, AN ARIZONA CORPORATION, ADDITIONAL PARTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v.
HARSH BUILDING CO., AN OREGON CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 71-2543.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
June 28, 1972.
Rehearing Denied September 12, 1972.
Page 1186
John P. Frank (argued), Gerald K. Smith, R. A. Hillhouse, of Lewis Roca, John J. Flynn, of Flynn, Kimerer, Thinnes Galbraith, Phoenix, Ariz., for appellants.

Newman Porter (argued), G. Starr Rounds, F. Pendleton Gaines, III, of Evans, Kitchell Jenckes, Snell Wilmer, Phoenix, Ariz., Hutchinson, Schwab Burdick, Portland, Or., for appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
Before CHAMBERS and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and PREGERSON,fn*District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
[1] The judgment is reversed. We conclude that we must find there was a lack of diversity of citizenship. Of course, it is tragic when we come up with such a result after the case has gone through a long trial.

[2] Here, the parties stipulated at the outset that one of the defendants, Harsh Building Corporation, has its principal place of business in Oregon. Later the evidence showed that really the only business activity of Harsh Building Corporation is owning and operating the Phoenix apartment complex which is the subject of this suit. Two of the plaintiffs are citizens of Arizona. Thus, we find at least one citizen of Arizona on each side of the case.

[3] An objection to jurisdiction based on lack of complete diversity between the parties in a lawsuit is never waived, nor is it lost by stipulation. Cf. Resnik v. La Paz Guest Ranch,289 F.2d 814(9th Cir. 1961). Where a corporation is engaged in only one business activity, substantially all of whose operations occur in one state, even though policy and administrative decisions are made elsewhere, the state of operations is the corporation's principal place of business. Lurie Co. v. Loew's San Francisco Hotel Corp.,315 F. Supp. 405(N. D.Cal. 1970).

[4] In equity there is not much to be said for sustaining the plaintiffs' (appellants') position. But jurisdiction is jurisdiction, so we must remand with directions to send the case back to the state court.Page 1188
  1. The Honorable Harry Pregerson, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. ↩