Case Name: Jorge J. MAYMO-MELENDEZ, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Julio ALVAREZ-RAMIREZ; Ricardo Pacheco-Pacheco; Irba Cruz-DeBatista, Defendants, Appellants, Jane Doe 02CV2001; Conjugal Partnership Alvarez-Doe; Jane Doe 02CV2001-2; Conjugal Partnership Pacheco-Doe; John Doe 02CV2001; Conjugal Partnership Doe-Cruz; Conjugal Partnership Alves-Doe; Juan Alves-Rueda, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-04
Citations: 373 F.3d 1
Docket Number: No. 03-1141
Parties: Jorge J. MAYMO-MELENDEZ, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Julio ALVAREZ-RAMIREZ; Ricardo Pacheco-Pacheco; Irba Cruz-DeBatista, Defendants, Appellants, Jane Doe 02CV2001; Conjugal Partnership Alvarez-Doe; Jane Doe 02CV2001-2; Conjugal Partnership Pacheco-Doe; John Doe 02CV2001; Conjugal Partnership Doe-Cruz; Conjugal Partnership Alves-Doe; Juan Alves-Rueda, Defendants.
Judges: Before BOUDIN, Chief Judge, TORRUELLA, SELYA, LYNCH, LIPEZ and HOWARD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 373
Pages: 1–1

Head Matter:
Jorge J. MAYMO-MELENDEZ, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Julio ALVAREZ-RAMIREZ; Ricardo Pacheco-Pacheco; Irba Cruz-DeBatista, Defendants, Appellants, Jane Doe 02CV2001; Conjugal Partnership Alvarez-Doe; Jane Doe 02CV2001-2; Conjugal Partnership Pacheco-Doe; John Doe 02CV2001; Conjugal Partnership Doe-Cruz; Conjugal Partnership Alves-Doe; Juan Alves-Rueda, Defendants.
No. 03-1141.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
May 4, 2004.
Charles A. Cuprill-Hernandez, Old San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ivette M. Berrios Hernandez, Eileen Landron Guardiola, Eduardo A. Vera-Ramirez, Landron & Vera, LLP, Guaynabo, PR, Salvador J. Antonetti-Stutts, Pietran-toni, Mendez & Alvarez, San Juan, PR, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before BOUDIN, Chief Judge, TORRUELLA, SELYA, LYNCH, LIPEZ and HOWARD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER OF COURT
The panel of judges that rendered the decision in this case having voted to deny the petition for rehearing and the suggestion for the holding of a rehearing en banc having been carefully considered by the judges of the Court in regular active service and a majority of said judges not having voted to order that the appeal be reheard by the Court en banc,
It is ordered that the petition for rehearing and the suggestion for rehearing en banc be denied.