Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,949 George F. Burke v. Triple a MacHine Shop, Inc.

Ninth Circuit

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,949 George F. Burke v. Triple a MacHine Shop, Inc.

438 F.2d 978, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11964

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 9, 1971

Docket23514

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 438 F.2d 978 (Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,949 George F. Burke v. Triple a MacHine Shop, 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

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,949 George F. Burke v. Triple a MacHine Shop, Inc., 438 F.2d 978, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11964 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

*979 PER CURIAM:

We conclude that the trial court correctly determined that there was no substantial issue of fact relating to the alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The alleged illegal conduct of the appellee-defendant officers and directors of the named corporations related to the purchase by the defendants of the plaintiff-appellant’s stock in the defendant corporations by impermissible means. Such conduct, if it occurred as alleged, is not a violation of the federal statute unless the defendants “directly or indirectly * * * us[ed] * * * any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails * * * in connection with the purchase * * * of any security.”

It is not contended that the mails were used. There was no interstate negotiation or purchase of the plaintiff’s stock. We conclude that there was also no use of an “instrumentality of interstate commerce” within the contemplation of the statute by reason of two local telephone calls to the companies’ counsel who was also an assistant secretary.

All of the facts are undisputed in affidavits or depositions. There was, therefore, no issue to be tried touching on the federal question. The court, therefore, was without jurisdiction.

However, the complaint may have asserted a valid cause of action under state law. The defendants made no effort to support their motion for summary judgment by affidavits negating the allegations of wrong doing. Lest the entry of summary judgment for the defendants be considered as a judgment on the merits of any possible state claim, therefore, we remand the case to the trial court to modify its judgment in such manner as will prevent any prejudice to such right as the plaintiff may have in the state courts.

Judgment affirmed in part. Reversed and remanded in part.

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

*979 PER CURIAM:

We conclude that the trial court correctly determined that there was no substantial issue of fact relating to the alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The alleged illegal conduct of the appellee-defendant officers and directors of the named corporations related to the purchase by the defendants of the plaintiff-appellant’s stock in the defendant corporations by impermissible means. Such conduct, if it occurred as alleged, is not a violation of the federal statute unless the defendants “directly or indirectly * * * us[ed] * * * any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails * * * in connection with the purchase * * * of any security.”

It is not contended that the mails were used. There was no interstate negotiation or purchase of the plaintiff’s stock. We conclude that there was also no use of an “instrumentality of interstate commerce” within the contemplation of the statute by reason of two local telephone calls to the companies’ counsel who was also an assistant secretary.

All of the facts are undisputed in affidavits or depositions. There was, therefore, no issue to be tried touching on the federal question. The court, therefore, was without jurisdiction.

However, the complaint may have asserted a valid cause of action under state law. The defendants made no effort to support their motion for summary judgment by affidavits negating the allegations of wrong doing. Lest the entry of summary judgment for the defendants be considered as a judgment on the merits of any possible state claim, therefore, we remand the case to the trial court to modify its judgment in such manner as will prevent any prejudice to such right as the plaintiff may have in the state courts.

Judgment affirmed in part. Reversed and remanded in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

438 F.2d 978, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11964, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fed-sec-l-rep-p-92949-george-f-burke-v-triple-a-machine-shop-inc-ca9-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack