Stephan Riess and Thelma McKinney Riess v. C. W. Murchison and Simi Valley Development Company

Good Law
384 F.2d 727·32 A.L.R. 3d 363·1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4782
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 24, 196720679_1California3,107 words

Opinion

Opinion

Barnes, J.

This case comes before us for a second time. In a decision reported at 329 F.2d 635 , we reversed in part and remanded to the district court, which thereafter stayed its proceedings and ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration. The propriety of that ruling is here at issue.

The jurisdiction of the district court was founded on diversity of citizenship; appellants Riess are citizens of California, while appellee Murchison is a citizen of Texas and the Simi Valley Development Company — the other appellee — is organized under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place of business in Texas. The sum in controversy well exceeds the requisite $10,000 amount. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (1964).

The case comes to us pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b) (1964). On April 11, 1966, the district court certified that the order here at issue involved a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion, and that an immediate appeal might materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. C.T. 221-22. On May 11, 1966, this court permitted the appeal.

The factual context into which the questions of this case are set is not uncomplicated, and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.