Court Opinion

ID: 9628009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:04:06.154091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:21.325397
License: Public Domain

STEWART, Associate Chief Justice,
dissenting:
I would hold the appeal to be vabd and direct the case to proceed on the merits. In my view, Senjuro v. Murray, 943 F.2d 36, 37 (10th Cir.1991), and Brignoli v. Balch Hardy & Scheinman, Inc., 739 F.Supp. 936, 938 (S.D.N.Y.1990), are ample authority for that position and will, no doubt, control the jurisdictional issue. When the district court is required now for the third time to rule on the issue, in my view, it is simply nonsensical to remand this ease once again to the district court for consideration of the issue before this Court. Such a ping-pong game between this Court and the district court simply has no point.