Bialac v. Harsh Building Co.
| Decision Date | 12 September 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-2543.,71-2543. |
| Citation | 463 F.2d 1185 |
| Parties | Sam BIALAC et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Rental Development Corporation of America, an Arizona corporation, Additional Party Planitiff-Appellant, v. HARSH BUILDING CO., an Oregon corporation, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
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.
Before CHAMBERS and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and PREGERSON,* District Judge.
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.
* The Honorable Harry Pregerson, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Hsbc Bank Nevada, N.A.
...a corporation's principal place of business"). 24. 912 F.2d 1090. 25. Id. at 1094. 26. Id. 27. Id. 28. Id. 29. Bialac v. Harsh Bldg. Co., 463 F.2d 1185, 1186 (9th Cir. 1972); see also New Alaska Dev. Corp. v. Guetschow, 869 F.2d 1298, 1301 (9th Cir. 1989); Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Ed......
-
United States v. Blair
... ... When they arrived, the informant entered the building and went to Apartment 8-C where Nocks resided, but the agent remained outside in his car watching ... ...
-
Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co.
...is the corporation's principal place of business even if policy and administrative decisions are made elsewhere. Bialac v. Harsh Building Co., 463 F.2d 1185, 1186 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1060, 93 S.Ct. 558, 34 L.Ed.2d 512 All of Decker's employees, coal properties, mining equipme......
-
Columbia Power Trades Council v. U.S. Dept. of Energy
...in the Supreme Court); Pacific Towboat & Salvage Co. v. I. C. C., 620 F.2d 727, 729 (9th Cir. 1980) (at any time); Bialac v. Harsh Building Co., 463 F.2d 1185 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1060, 93 S.Ct. 558, 34 L.Ed.2d 512 (1972) (after full trial and judgment in the district court).4......
-
Jurisdiction is jurisdiction: a warning to litigators.
...rose is a rose, and jurisdiction is jurisdiction ....") (Schwelb, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part); Bialac v. Harsh Bldg. Co., 463 F.2d 1185, 1186 (9th Cir. (8) Reviewable nonfinal orders are listed in Fla. R. aPP. P. 9.130(a)(3) and include those that: "(A) concern venue (B) gra......