Gary Bryant v. Ford Motor Co.

Bad Law
886 F.2d 1526·1989 WL 108766·15 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 567·1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 14664
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 25, 198984-6389, 85-5698California4,807 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hall, J.

This court has had an enduring relationship with this case, although we never have considered the merits of plaintiff-appellant Gary Bryant’s contention that the district court below erred by entering summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee Ford Motor Corporation. Instead, we have concluded — on two occasions — that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter judgment due to the presence of doe defendants. See Bryant v. Ford Motor Co., 794 F.2d 450 (9th Cir.1986); Bryant v. Ford Motor Co., 844 F.2d 602 (9th Cir.1987) (en banc) (.Bryant II). In our Bryant II en banc decision, we overruled numerous cases that had created exceptions to the general rule in this circuit that doe defendants defeat diversity jurisdiction.

As Bryant II overturned the judgment entered in Ford’s favor, Ford filed a petition for certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted on October 3, 1988. — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 54 , 102 L.Ed.2d 32 (1988). On November 19, 1988, the President signed into law the Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act of 1988, Pub.L. 100-702, 102 Stat. 4642 (1988) (the “Act”). Section 1016(a) of Title X of the Act contains an amendment to the removal statute…

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.