Michael Kent and John Kent v. Ivan Mindlin

52 F.3d 333 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Michael KENT and John Kent, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ivan MINDLIN, Defendant-Appellee. No. 93-17286. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted April 13, 1995. Decided April 21, 1995. IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART. Before: GIBSON, * GOODWIN and HUG, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Plaintiffs Michael and John Kent agreed with Ivan Mindlin to pool their resources (skill and money) and place bets on sports events. After several profitable years, the Kents thought Mindlin was wrongfully withholding their share of wagering profits and brought this diversity action. The district court dismissed the action after taking enough testimony to decide that the action was basically a suit to enforce the terms of an illegal agreement. The Kents appeal. We affirm in part and vacate and remand in part. I. 3 From 1981 until 1986, the Kents, Mindlin, and others were parties to a sports betting…