Case Name: Frank Groom KIRTZ and Mary Jane Kirtz, Appellants, v. Blanton WIGGIN; Erma Wiggin; Advanced Instruments, Inc., A. I. Company, Inc., a/k/a Advanced Instruments, Inc. and H T L Instruments, Inc., Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1981-02-05
Citations: 637 F.2d 572
Docket Number: No. 80-1073
Parties: Frank Groom KIRTZ and Mary Jane Kirtz, Appellants, v. Blanton WIGGIN; Erma Wiggin; Advanced Instruments, Inc., A. I. Company, Inc., a/k/a Advanced Instruments, Inc. and H T L Instruments, Inc., Appellees.
Judges: Before HEANEY, ADAMS, and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 637
Pages: 572–572

Head Matter:
Frank Groom KIRTZ and Mary Jane Kirtz, Appellants, v. Blanton WIGGIN; Erma Wiggin; Advanced Instruments, Inc., A. I. Company, Inc., a/k/a Advanced Instruments, Inc. and H T L Instruments, Inc., Appellees.
No. 80-1073.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 16, 1980.
Decided Feb. 5, 1981.
Joseph L. Badaracco, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Frank Groom Kirtz and Mary Jane Kirtz, pro se.
Mark D. Mittleman, St. Louis, Mo., for defendants-appellees.
Before HEANEY, ADAMS, and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges.
The HONORABLE ARLIN M. ADAMS, United . States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This matter is before the Court for the second time. When it was first here, we considered the district court's dismissal of all of the counts of a thirteen-count complaint. We upheld the dismissal with respect to three of the thirteen counts but reinstated the remaining counts and remanded to the district court for further consideration. Kirtz v. Wiggin, 566 F.2d 1179 (8th Cir. 1977).
On remand, the complaint was again amended by the plaintiffs. The district court carefully considered the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint of sixteen counts for failure to state a claim and for summary judgment. It held that judgment should be entered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs on Counts 1 through 15, and that Count 16 should be stricken without prejudice.
During the course of oral argument and thereafter, this Court encouraged the parties to settle this lengthy litigation. It suggested that the matter might be resolved if the plaintiffs would pay a 1971 judgment against them, together with accrued interest thereon to the defendants and that, in turn, Advanced Instruments, Inc., a corporation controlled by the defendants, would pay a judgment against it in favor of the plaintiffs, together with the accrued interest thereon. The suggestion of the Court was accepted by the appellees and rejected by the appellants; thus, no settlement in the matter was achieved.
After oral argument and careful consideration of the records and briefs, we affirm the judgment of the district court on the basis of its well-reasoned opinion. Kirtz v. Wiggin, 483 F.Supp. 148 (D.E.D.Mo.1980). Costs will be taxed to the appellants.