Court Opinion

ID: 9462358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:39:19.960215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:33.593874
License: Public Domain

VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I agree with the majority that the court and the parties, erroneously believing jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship, failed to consider the question of pendent jurisdiction and that the failure of the parties to delineate their various claims created serious confusion on the merits. Under these circumstances, a remand to allow the district court to address the issue of jurisdiction and other questions is necessary.
In my view, however, the portion of the complaint set out in the first sentence of part I of the opinion (page 2) contains a sufficient allegation that *477there was fraud “in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.” I, therefore, believe it unnecessary to consider the effect of the introduction of evidence on such issue as discussed at pages 474r-475 of the opinion. Further, while the complaint fails to allege facts from which the involvement of “any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of the mails” can be inferred, I believe the evidence was sufficient to permit the district court on remand to determine that there was jurisdiction over the federal claim and, hence, to consider the exercise of pendent jurisdiction. See page 476 of Judge Hunter’s opinion.
In all other respects, I join in Judge Hunter’s opinion.