Dericksen M. Brinkerhoff, Etc. v. Amfac, Inc.

Ninth Circuit

Dericksen M. Brinkerhoff, Etc. v. Amfac, Inc.

485 F.2d 1389, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7916

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 13, 1973

Docket73-2365

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 485 F.2d 1389 (Dericksen M. Brinkerhoff, Etc. v. Amfac, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dericksen M. Brinkerhoff, Etc. v. Amfac, Inc., 485 F.2d 1389, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7916 (9th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Although appellants insist that they seek only to attack Judge Pence’s construction of Judge Tavares’ instructions to the appraisers, it is evident that the attack would be pointless unless the real aim were to upset the valuations reached by the court-appointed appraisers. Appellants recognize, or they must, that they are in a situation directly analogous to one who seeks to upset an arbitration award. Accordingly, their only hope in turning over the “award” is to claim that it was the product of extrinsic fraud or that the “arbitrators” exceeded the scope of the submission and thus acted outside their jurisdiction.

To the extent that extrinsic fraud was charged, Judge Pence found against the appellants and there is no basis in the record to upset that determination.

We have examined Judge Pence’s construction of Judge Tavares’ instructions to the appraisers, and we have concluded that Judge Pence did not err in his interpretation of them.

Appellants are understandably distressed by the valuations reached by the appraisers. Unfortunately for appellants, the scope of judicial review available to them on the basis of their stipulation and the orders of the court predicated upon their agreement is far more *1390 restrictive than that which would have been accorded without the settlement agreement.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. Sanctions are denied. The judgment is forthwith affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Although appellants insist that they seek only to attack Judge Pence’s construction of Judge Tavares’ instructions to the appraisers, it is evident that the attack would be pointless unless the real aim were to upset the valuations reached by the court-appointed appraisers. Appellants recognize, or they must, that they are in a situation directly analogous to one who seeks to upset an arbitration award. Accordingly, their only hope in turning over the “award” is to claim that it was the product of extrinsic fraud or that the “arbitrators” exceeded the scope of the submission and thus acted outside their jurisdiction.

To the extent that extrinsic fraud was charged, Judge Pence found against the appellants and there is no basis in the record to upset that determination.

We have examined Judge Pence’s construction of Judge Tavares’ instructions to the appraisers, and we have concluded that Judge Pence did not err in his interpretation of them.

Appellants are understandably distressed by the valuations reached by the appraisers. Unfortunately for appellants, the scope of judicial review available to them on the basis of their stipulation and the orders of the court predicated upon their agreement is far more *1390 restrictive than that which would have been accorded without the settlement agreement.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. Sanctions are denied. The judgment is forthwith affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

485 F.2d 1389, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dericksen-m-brinkerhoff-etc-v-amfac-inc-ca9-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack