Alfred J. Hise v. Garlock Inc.

Good Law
841 F.2d 342·1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 3028
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 10, 198887-4044, 88-3529California854 words

Opinion

Opinion

ORDER

Alfred and Violet Hise initially filed this state law personal injury action in an Idaho State court against 100 Doe defendants. They amended the complaint to name three foreign corporations, the appellees here, as defendants. The amended complaint retained the Doe defendants. The corporations removed the case to United States District Court for the District of Idaho on the alleged basis of diversity of citizenship. The district court eventually granted the corporations’ motions for summary judgment and awarded them attorneys fees. 669 P.Supp. 1026. The Hises have appealed. A prior motions panel issued an order to show cause why this court should not remand these cases to the district court with instructions to vacate the judgment and fee awards and remand the case to the Idaho state court in light of our decision in Bryant v. Ford Motor Co., 832 F.2d 1080 (9th Cir.1987) (en banc).

In Bryant , we held that “the presence of Doe defendants under California Doe defendant law destroys diversity, and, thus precludes removal.” Id. at 1083 . Instead of the farrago of rules that previously governed removal of Doe defendant cases, we adopted the straightforward rule that “the…

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.