Art Broman v. Riedel International, Inc.

892 F.2d 82 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Art BROMAN, Appellant, v. RIEDEL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellee. No. 88-2698. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 16, 1989. Decided Dec. 18, 1989. 1 Before BRUNETTI and NOONAN, Circuit Judges, and HARRY L. HUPP, * District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 Appeal by plaintiff/counter-defendant from summary judgment in favor of defendant/counter-claimant and from denial of post-arbitration motions. AFFIRMED. BACKGROUND 4 This diversity action was originally filed by appellant Art Broman (hereinafter Broman) against appellee Riedel International, Inc. (hereinafter Riedel). Broman sought declaratory relief and alleged that Riedel had been unjustly enriched in the performance of a contract between the two parties. Riedel had been hired by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (hereinafter SFRA) to construct a boat harbor and park, and it contracted with Broman for demolition services…