Summary
holding that because transfer "undoubtedly would have led to delay, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Allen's motion notwithstanding possible inconvenience to the witnesses."
Summary of this case from Arroyo v. TP-Link USA Corp.Opinion
No. 85-2125.
September 29, 1987.
Stanley G. Hilton, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
Michael S. Sorgen, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
George Chris Stoll, San Francisco, Cal., Susan R. Oie, Sacramento, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Before NELSON, CANBY and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
The opinion 812 F.2d 426 (9th Cir. 1987), filed March 5, 1987, is hereby amended as follows:
(1) Page 429, col. 1, lines 36-37:
Under the heading "(i)," "all of the state defendants," is replaced with "state defendants Scribner, Hans Van Nes, Richard Rominger, and Robert Dowell."
(2) Page 429, col. 2, line 5:
The semicolon following "1981" is replaced with a period. The phrase "and (iv)" is deleted and replaced with: "In his affidavit, Allen also alleges that."
(3) Page 434, footnote 17:
In the parenthetical following the citation to Bart v. Telford, 677 F.2d 622, 625 (7th Cir. 1982)," the words "summary judgment" are changed to "motion to dismiss."