Procare Laboratories, Inc. An Arizona Corporation v. Gull Laboratories, Inc., a Utah Corporation

50 F.3d 15 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. PROCARE LABORATORIES, INC. an Arizona corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GULL LABORATORIES, INC., a Utah corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 93-16623. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Feb. 14, 1995. * Decided March 15, 1995. 1 IN PART AND REMANDED IN PART. 2 Before: TANG and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges, and MERHIGE, Senior District Judge. ** 3 MEMORANDUM *** 4 Procare Laboratories, Inc. ("Procare") filed suit against Gull Laboratories, Inc. ("Gull") in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on December 4, 1994. The district court found that Procare's claim should have been raised as a compulsory counterclaim in a prior state court action by Gull against Procare and granted summary judgment in favor of Gull. Procare appeals this decision. Gull contends Procare's appeal is frivolous and requests attorney's fees and double its costs. I. 5 In 1990, Gull and Procare…