Jaliwala v. Five Oceans Gem Corp‪.‬

Order Almost three years ago this court dismissed an appeal from a judgment entered after trial before a magistrate Judge.
945 F.2d 221 (1991). Two of the parties had not consented to the entry of final judgment by a magistrate Judge, so we lacked
jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 636(c). After we dismissed the appeal, a district Judge held a bench trial and entered
findings of fact and Conclusions of law. Plaintiff Firoz Jaliwala, who prevailed before the magistrate Judge but lost the
second trial, contends that the findings of fact are clearly erroneous. We hold that they are not, see Anderson v. Bessemer
City, 470 U.S. 564, 84 L. Ed. 2d 518, 105 S. Ct. 1504 (1985), and affirm. Jaliwala entrusted jewels to Morton Dock, who sold some of them for his own account to a partnership of Five Oceans Gem
Corp. and Bretislav Stasny. Dock later was indicted for this defalcation and committed suicide before he could be arrested.
Five Oceans and Stasny turned their remaining inventory of Jaliwala's gems over to the FBI. This suit is largely about who
has superior title to the gems: Jaliwala or the partnership that bought from Dock. The UCC provides that a dishonest merchant
to whom goods have been entrusted may convey good title to a purchaser "in ordinary course of business." UCC § 2-403(2).
Thus the question for trial was whether the partnership bought the gems from Dock, a merchant, "in ordinary course of business."
The district Judge answered yes.