Jack C. Hale v. Burt Ward Jane Doe Ward, Husband and Wife, and Their Marital Community Pinnacle Associates, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

94 F.3d 651 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Jack C. HALE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Burt WARD; Jane Doe Ward, husband and wife, and their marital community; Pinnacle Associates, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-36145. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Jan. 10, 1996. Decided Aug. 12, 1996. Before: BROWNING, WRIGHT, and CANBY, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 Jack Hale appeals from the district court's summary judgment in favor of Burt Ward in Hale's diversity action for breach of a promissory note secured by shares of common stock in Pinnacle Associates, Inc., of which Ward was Chief Executive Officer. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings because there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Ward or Ward's agent wrongfully interfered with Hale's possession of the collateral. I. BACKGROUND 3…