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
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that diversity jurisdiction was lacking because a defendant corporation's principal place of business was in the same state as plaintiffs, despite a stipulation to the contrary.
The parties stipulated that a defendant corporation's principal place of business was Oregon. However, evidence showed its sole business activity was …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Stipulation Of Facts cases and more on FLexlaw
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kanzelberger v. Kanzelberger, 782 F.2d 774 (7th Cir. 1986)
-
Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834 (9th Cir. 1986)
-
Columbia Power Trades Council v. United States Dep't OF Energy, 671 F.2d 325 (9th Cir. 1982)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Resnik v. LA PAZ Guest Ranch, 289 F.2d 814 (9th Cir. 1961)