United States Ninth Circuit

If the plain language of a partnership agreement's anti-transfer provisions clearly does not restrict the legitimate sale of the stock of a corporate partner, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to the clause's proper construction, and parole evidence is inadmissible to show an alternative meaning.

Appellate Information

• Argued 12/05/2001
• Decided 02/21/2002
• Published 02/21/2002

Judges

• WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge., Before:  LEAVY, T.G. NELSON and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Peter I. Ostroff,James M. Harris, Los Angeles, CA;  Richard J. O'Brien, David B. Johnson, and Kyle D. Rettberg, Chicago, IL;  Sidley & Austin, for appellant United States Cellular Investment Company of Los Angeles, Inc.


• For Appellees:
  
• Barbara Moses, New York, NY;  William A. Molinski, and Nada I. Shamonki, Los Angeles, CA;  Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, for appellee GTE Wireless Incorporated., Robert M. Westberg, Morgan R. Smock, San Francisco, CA;  Alan J. Droste, and Todd G. Friedland, Costa Mesa, CA;  Pillsbury Winthrop LLP, for appellees AirTouch Cellular and AirTouch Communications, Inc., David C. Scheper, Marc S. Harris, John J. Lulejian, Winston & Strawn, Los Angeles, CA;  Reid M. Figle, Kevin B. Huff, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans, P.L.L.C., Washington, DC;  John Thorne, Christopher M. Arfaa, Verizon Communications, Inc., Arlington, Virginia, for appellee Bell Atlantic Corporation.