Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Alexander v. Circus Circus Enterprises Inc.

filed: August 5, 1992.

THERESE ALEXANDER; ROY ALEXANDER, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
CIRCUS CIRCUS ENTERPRISES, INC., A CORPORATION; EDGEWATER HOTEL, INC., A CORPORATION; COLORADO BELLE CORPORATION, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. D.C. No. CV-89-4031-TJH. Terry J. Hatter, Jr., District Judge, Presiding. This Order Substituted by Court for Withdrawn Opinion of July 29, 1991

Before: Procter Hug, Jr., William A. Norris, and Edward Leavy, Circuit Judges.

Order

The appellees' Petition for Rehearing is GRANTED. The Opinion previously filed on July 29, 1991, and reported at 939 F.2d 847, is WITHDRAWN.

Order

We have ordered that our opinion, Alexander v. Circus Circus Enterprises, Inc., 939 F.2d 847 (9th Cir. 1991), be withdrawn.

In the opinion, we relied on allegations in the Alexanders' complaint to overcome statements in the supplemental declaration of William T. Martin, Associate General Counsel for Circus Circus Enterprises, Inc. and their subsidiary corporations Edgewater Hotel Corporation and Colorado Belle Corporation. In his declaration, Martin stated:

The subject boating accident did not occur in or at the Colorado Belle, but instead occurred on the Colorado River during a shuttle ride between the Edgewater Hotel and Bullhead City, Arizona on a vessel owned and operated by Edgewater Hotel Corporation.

Supplemental Declaration at 15, para. 2 (emphasis added).

In our opinion, we said:

Nor does it matter that the defendants Circus Circus and Colorado Belle claim that the Edgewater Hotel, Inc. owned and operated the pontoon boat. The Alexanders allege in their complaint that 'Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that at all times relevant herein, that Defendants, and each of them, owned, operated, maintained, navigated, managed and controlled that certain pontoon ferryboat engaged in the business of carriage or passengers/business invitees on the navigable waters of the United States.' Complaint at 2, para. 7. For jurisdictional purposes, we must treat the Alexander's allegations as true. [ Shute v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 897 F.2d 377, 380 (9th Cir. 1990)].

Alexander, 939 F.2d at 853-54.

However, this circuit has held that for purposes of personal jurisdiction, "we may not assume the truth of allegations in a pleading which are contradicted by affidavit." Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technology Assoc., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1284 (9th Cir. 1977) (citing Taylor v. Portland Paramount Corp., 383 F.2d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 1967)). The Alexanders' allegations are contradicted by Martin's affidavit, which states that the Edgewater Hotel Corporation is the sole owner and operator of the pontoon boat.

We now AFFIRM as to all ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.