Gavin v. Busch Agr. Resources, Inc.

12 F.3d 1106 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Gregory M. GAVIN; Shawna Gavin, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BUSCH AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES, INC., a corporation; Consolidated Farms, Inc., dba Elk Mountain Farms, a corporation; John Does I through XXV, Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-35333. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 5, 1993. * Decided Nov. 16, 1993. Before: TANG, FARRIS, and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 The Gavins appeal, arguing that Tucker farms was engaged in a joint venture with Tim and Ellen Tucker individually and d/b/a T & E Enterprises/Kootenai Valley Ranch, the persons whose employees manufactured the eyebolt. We have jurisdiction of the timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 . We affirm. I. Joint Venture Law in Idaho 3 The question is whether Tucker Farms and T & E Enterprises were engaged in a joint venture. Idaho law governs. See Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304…