Court Opinion

ID: 2965206
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:37:10.166984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:06.263635
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                         ____________________
No. 97-1770

                       EDDIE DOMINGUEZ, ET AL.,

                        Plaintiffs Appellants,

                                  v.

                 ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, INC., ET AL.,

                        Defendants, Appellees.

                        ______________________

             APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

            [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]

                         ____________________

                                Before

                         Selya, Circuit Judge,

                    Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,

                      and Boudin, Circuit Judge.

                         ____________________

    Rosa M. Nogueras De Gonzalez for appellant.
    Carl Schuster, with whom Maria Santiago De Vidal, Anabel Rodriguez
Alonso, and Schuster Usera Aguilo & Santiago were on brief for
appellees.

                         ____________________
                             March 6, 1998
                         ____________________           Per Curiam.  Having reviewed the parties briefs, read
    the record, and heard argument, we affirm the judgment of the
    district court essentially for the same reasons as are set out
    in the court's comprehensive opinion.  See Dominguez v. Eli
    Lilly & Co., 958 F. Supp. 721 (D.P.R. 1997).  Viewing the
    record in the light most favorable to appellants, we, like the
    court below, can find no genuine issue of material fact
    concerning whether appellants were constructively discharged. 
    See Vega v. Kodak Caribbean, Ltd., 3 F.3d 476, 479 (1st Cir.
    1993).
             Appellants assert on appeal that the district court
    gave undue emphasis to the Puerto Rico district court's "anti-
    ferret" rule, D.P.R. R. 311.12, rather than following Federal
    Rule of Civil Procedure 56's requirement to evaluate all the
    record evidence.  However, we see nothing inconsistent with
    Rule 56 in the requirements contained in the anti-ferret rule,
    and the court's reference to it.  Moreover, in the alternative,
    the district court grounded its decision upon a reading of the
    full record, which it analyzed extensively and accurately.
             We find no merit in appellants' claim that the
    district court erroneously relied upon hearsay contained in the
    affidavit of Ricardo Flores Borgos.  Appellants overstate both
    the hearsay nature of the affidavit and the importance of the
    alleged hearsay to the outcome of the case.  In ruling on
    appellants' Rule 60(b) motion, the district court denied that
    it had relied at all on the contested sections of the
    affidavit.  We discern no factual issue in this record.
             Affirmed.  Costs to appellees.