From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bialac v. Harsh Building Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 12, 1972
463 F.2d 1185 (9th Cir. 1972)

Summary

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

Summary of this case from Weaver v. Hollywood Casino-Aurora, Inc.

Opinion

No. 71-2543.

June 28, 1972. Rehearing Denied September 12, 1972.

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, District Judge.

The Honorable Harry Pregerson, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.


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.

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.

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).

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.


Summaries of

Bialac v. Harsh Building Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 12, 1972
463 F.2d 1185 (9th Cir. 1972)

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

Summary of this case from Weaver v. Hollywood Casino-Aurora, Inc.

In Bialac v. Harsh Building Co., 463 F.2d 1185 (9th Cir. 1972) (per curiam), the court ordered the case dismissed rather than remanded, because there was no doubt of the lack of jurisdiction.

Summary of this case from Kanzelberger v. Kanzelberger
Case details for

Bialac v. Harsh Building Co.

Case Details

Full title:SAM BIALAC ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, AND RENTAL DEVELOPMENT…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Sep 12, 1972

Citations

463 F.2d 1185 (9th Cir. 1972)

Citing Cases

Bonar, Inc. v. Schottland

Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be agreed to or waived by the parties. Bialac v. Harsh Building Co., 463…

Webcor Construction, Inc. v. Omni San Francisco Corp.

"Where a corporation is engaged in only one business activity, substantially all of whose operations occur in…