City of San Jose v. Price Waterhouse

990 F.2d 1256 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. CITY OF SAN JOSE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Price WATERHOUSE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-16489. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Feb. 4, 1993. Decided March 23, 1993. Before ALARCON, RYMER and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 On September 20, 1984, San Jose ("City") brought action against Price Waterhouse and thirteen securities dealers, claiming that the dealers had entered into numerous high risk investments contrary to city policy and that Price Waterhouse, the City's independent accounting firm, had breached its audit contract and its professional duties in failing to report the transactions to the Mayor and the City Council. The City suffered losses of approximately sixty million dollars when it liquidated a portion of its investment portfolio. 3 The City settled with all thirteen securities dealers, eleven prior to trial, and two after verdicts were returned.…