1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 813 F.2d
  5. 813 F.2d 1368 (1987)
 

SULLIVAN v. FIRST AFFILIATED SECURITIES, INC.

No. 85-2961.

813 F.2d 1368 (1987)

Mary Lou SULLIVAN, Daniel T. Sullivan, William T. Sullivan, Jr., Kenneth C. Martin, Perry Kenny, Calvin F. Robinson, Catherine D. Robinson, Sydney Krogstad, Beverly Krogstad, Joseph S. Wand, Robert G. Mesires, William E. Coyle, Diane H. Coyle, Dan Boyd, Roxana Boyd, Thomas D. Adamson, Mark Adamson, Thomas C. Miller, Brian J. Miller, Robert E. Richardson, Raymond D. Sussman, Anjali Sussman, and Cerena Wong, all individuals; Malm Metal Products, Inc., a California corporation, Malm Metal Products, Inc. Defined Benefit Plan, Pine Creek Development Corporation Pension Plan and Trust, Pine Creek Properties, a California limited partnership, Robert E. Richardson, M.D., P.C., Defined Benefit Pension Plan and Trust, Joseph S. Wand, M.D., Inc., Pension and Profit Sharing Plan and Able Fence Co., Inc., a California corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FIRST AFFILIATED SECURITIES, INC., a California corporation, Larry Gibson, Harold E. Card, Ronald R. Walker, Carl E. Wright, Wright Herfordt & Sanders, Raymond Jallow, Thomas Tierney, Tierney & Ernst, Ira W. Palmer, William H. Palmer, John P. Redd, Tim D. Compton, Paul J. Keil, Financial Communications Group, Ltd., Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., Process Management Co., Inc. and Does One through Twenty, Doe Corporations Twenty-One through Forty, and Doe Partnerships Forty-One through Sixty, Defendants-Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Decided April 1, 1987.

As Amended April 20, 1987.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Bruce R. MacLeod, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Michael F. Perlis and Sharon L. O'Grady, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellees.

Before SCHROEDER, WIGGINS and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

WIGGINS, Circuit Judge:

This is an interlocutory appeal from the district court's order denying plaintiffs' motion to remand plaintiffs' state claims to state court. Plaintiffs filed two parallel securities actions, one in federal court under federal law and one in state court under state law. Defendants removed the state claims to federal court. In its order denying remand, the district court based its decision on its analysis of the "artful pleading" doctrine as...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases