Mayacamas Corporation, a California Corporation v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, a Georgia Corporation

806 F.2d 928 MAYACAMAS CORPORATION, a California corporation, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. GULFSTREAM AEROSPACE CORPORATION, a Georgia corporation, Defendant/Appellant. No. 86-1830. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 13, 1986. Decided Dec. 19, 1986. As corrected Jan. 16, 1987. Gary L. Hultquist, Gregory H. Ward, Mosher, Pooley, Sullivan & Hultquist, Palo Alto, Cal., for plaintiff/appellee. Elliot L. Bien, Robert J. Stumpf, Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant/appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Before WRIGHT, SNEED and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges. EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge. 1 Gulfstream appeals the denial of its motion to stay or dismiss the action pending the resolution of parallel state proceedings. We find these orders nonappealable and dismiss. FACTS 2 Mayacamas, a California corporation, agreed to purchase an aircraft manufactured by Gulfstream, a Georgia corporation. Mayacamas later refused to make payments allegedly because Gulfstream increased the production and availability of its aircraft. This allegedly frustrated Mayacamas's purpose, which…

Gulfstream appeals the denial of its motion to stay or dismiss the action pending the resolution of parallel state proceedings. We find these orders nonappealable and dismiss.

FACTS

Mayacamas, a California corporation, agreed to purchase an aircraft manufactured by Gulfstream, a Georgia corporation. Mayacamas later refused to make payments allegedly because Gulfstream increased the production and availability of its aircraft. This allegedly frustrated Mayaca-mas’s purpose, which according to Mayaca-mas was to transfer its rights when demand for the aircraft was high.

Gulfstream filed a breach of contract action against Mayacamas in a Georgia state court. About a month later, Mayaca-mas filed a diversity action against Gulf-stream for breach of the same contract in the district court for the Northern District of California.

Each party has been inconvenienced prosecuting or defending the actions in the two fora. Witnesses and documents are located in both California and Georgia. There has been discovery in both actions.

Gulfstream moved to stay or dismiss the federal action pursuant to the abstention doctrine. Colorado River Water District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 , 96…

dissenting;

I respectfully dissent from the holding that this order is not appealable. Although the issue is a significant one, I shall not extend this expression of my views beyond stating that I would follow the Seventh Circuit’s holding appearing in Microsoft-ware Computer Systems, Inc. v. Ontel Corporation, 686 F.2d 531 (7th Cir.1982). That is, in my view the order is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a)(1).

It will serve little purpose for me to discuss the merits of the appeal. Suffice it to say, I would affirm the district court’s refusal to abstain.