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

Ninth Circuit

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

463 F.2d 1185

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 12, 1972

Docket71-2543

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 463 F.2d 1185 (Sam Bialac, and Rental Development Corporation of America, an Arizona Corporation, Additional Party v. Harsh Building Co., an Oregon Corporation) 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

Sam Bialac, and Rental Development Corporation of America, an Arizona Corporation, Additional Party v. Harsh Building Co., an Oregon Corporation, 463 F.2d 1185 (9th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

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.

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

PER CURIAM:

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.

New Alaska Development Corporation, a New York Corporation v. Bernd C. Guetschow, New Alaska Development Corporation, a New York Corporation, and J. Glen Cassity, Stockholder Individually v. Bernd C. Guetschow, New Alaska Development Corporation, a New York Corporation v. Ralph E. Moody, Personally and State of Alaska, New Alaska Development Corporation, a New York Corporation, and J. Glen Cassity, Stockholder Individually v. Ralph E. Moody, Personally and State of Alaska

869 F.2d 1298 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)

Santana Salgado v. DuPont Pharmaceutical, Inc.

664 F. Supp. 644 (D. Puerto Rico, 1987)

Decker Coal Company v. Commonwealth Edison Company

805 F.2d 834 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)

Bonar, Inc. v. Schottland

631 F. Supp. 990 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1986)

James C. Kanzelberger and Contemporary, Inc., Cross v. Warren F. Kanzelberger and Geraldine G. Kanzelberger, Cross-Appellees, and William J. Deau

782 F.2d 774 (Seventh Circuit, 1986)

Hanna Mining Co. v. Minnesota Power and Light Co.

573 F. Supp. 1395 (D. Minnesota, 1983)

Homestead Log Co. v. Square D Co.

555 F. Supp. 1056 (D. Idaho, 1983)

Columbia Power Trades Council v. United States Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration (Bpa), and Sterling Munro, as Bpa Administrator

671 F.2d 325 (Ninth Circuit, 1982)

Harsh Building Company v. Bialac

529 P.2d 1185 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1975)

Bender v. HILTON RIVIERA CORPORATION

367 F. Supp. 380 (D. Puerto Rico, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

463 F.2d 1185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sam-bialac-and-rental-development-corporation-of-america-an-arizona-ca9-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack