The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in MENKEN v. EMM, No. 05-16467, a diversity appeal. The panel consisted of Jay S. Bybee and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges, and J. Michael Seabright, District Judge.

SEABRIGHT, District Judge:
On December 12, 2003, Plaintiff-Appellant David Menken (”Menken”) filed a Complaint in Arizona state court alleging negligence, interference with contractual relations, civil extortion, and a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (”A.R.S.”) § 33-420. Defendant-Appellee Tomerlin removed the case (based on diversity of citizenship) to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on March 24, 2004. The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. . . .

BYBEE, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment:
I fully agree with Judge Seabright’s opinion with respect to the timeliness of Menken’s appeal. I also concur in the majority’s judgment with respect to personal jurisdiction: Menken 5Given our disposition on personal jurisdiction, we do not reach Menken’s remaining issues on appeal, including his challenge to the denial of his motions to retain in rem jurisdiction and to amend the Complaint. . . .

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 19th, 2007 at 10:00 am and is filed under Diversity. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.