V. Robert Colton, and Lottie S. Colton v. Bruce W. Halstead v. Robert Colton, and Lottie S. Colton v. Strong Point, Inc., and Rodger Garrity

42 F.3d 1399 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. V. Robert COLTON, and Lottie S. Colton Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Bruce W. HALSTEAD, Defendant-Appellee. V. Robert COLTON, and Lottie S. Colton, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. STRONG POINT, INC., Defendant, and Rodger Garrity, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 93-55284, 93-55718. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 16, 1994. * Decided Nov. 15, 1994. Before: FEINBERG, ** SCHROEDER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM *** 2 1. In number 93-55284, V. Robert Colton and his mother, Lottie S. Colton, appeal from the district court's judgment, after a bench trial, for defendant Bruce W. Halstead. The Coltons brought this diversity action, claiming fraud and negligent misrepresentation under California law. They argue that false statements made by Halstead about a product he had invented (BioTune), which came to be owned by Strong Point, Inc., caused them to invest to their detriment in Strong Point,…