Court Opinion

ID: 2963530
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:11:32.38223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:41.735637
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1185

                            RAFAELA ROJAS-MORALES, ET AL.,
                                Plaintiffs, Appellees,

                                          v.

                             CAGUAS LUMBER YARD, ET AL.,
                                Defendants, Appellees,
                                   _______________,

                      AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

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

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Rene  Pinto Lugo, Dario Rivera Carrasquillo, Jaime Morales Morales
            ________________  _________________________  _____________________
        and Cordero, Miranda & Pinto on brief for appellant.
            ________________________
            Pedro  Toledo Gonzalez  Law Offices  on  brief for  Caguas  Lumber
            ___________________________________
        Yard, Inc. et al., appellees.

                                 ____________________
                                    August 4, 1995
                                 ____________________

                 

                 Per Curiam.  This appeal arises out of a personal injury
                 __________

            lawsuit  brought by Rafaela Rojas-Morales and her son, Brian,

            following  a  chemical  explosion  which  occurred  when  two

            products, Crosco Clean Up and  Lewis Red Devil Lye, were used

            to  unclog  a  drain  pipe.    After  approving a  settlement

            stipulation, the  district court  dismissed the entire  case.

            Defendant-appellant American International  Insurance Company

            ("AIICO") appeals.  For the following reasons, we affirm.

                                      BACKGROUND

                 We  recite only the background of this case necessary to

            an understanding of  our disposition.  The  amended complaint

            names as defendants:  Caguas Lumber Yard, Inc.; Gildo  Masso-

            Gonzalez,   his  wife   Carmen  Aponte,   and   the  conjugal

            partnership between them; Hector L. Rivera-Fontanez, his wife

            Cecilia Rivera-Munoz,  and the  conjugal partnership  between

            them;  Max Chemicals, Inc.; AIICO; Association of Warranty of

            all  Types  of  Insurance  ("Association");  and  Eagle  Star

            Insurance Company of  Puerto Rico ("Eagle  Star").  On  March

            23, 1994, AIICO,  an excess insurer, filed an  amended cross-

            claim for contribution against co-defendants Association  and

            Eagle Star, both  primary insurers.  Approximately  one month

            later,  AIICO filed  a  motion for  summary  judgment on  its

            amended cross-claim.  

                 On  September  29,  1994,  following  several months  of

            negotiation,  a stipulation  of  settlement and  request  for

                                         -2-
                                          2

            judgment  was filed.   Later  that  same day,  AIICO filed  a

            request  for  a ruling  on  its  pending motion  for  summary

            judgment.  On  October 4, 1994,  the district court  approved

            the settlement  stipulation.  Approximately  two weeks later,

            the court denied AIICO's request  for a ruling on its summary

            judgment motion on the ground that the settlement stipulation

            put  an  end  to  all matters  pending  at  the  time of  the

            settlement, including  AIICO's cross-claim.   On  November 1,

            1994,  final judgment dismissing the entire case was entered.

            On November  21, 1994,  AIICO served and  filed a  motion for

            reconsideration.  This motion was denied on December 1, 1994.

            AIICO filed a notice of appeal on December 12, 1994.

                                      DISCUSSION

                 Appellees argue, and  we agree, that appellant  does not

            have a timely appeal  from the judgment.  Under  Fed. R. App.

            P. 4(a)(1),  appellant  was required  to file  its notice  of

            appeal  within thirty  days after  the date  of entry  of the

            judgment.   It is well  established that "timely filing  of a

            notice   of  appeal   is  `mandatory   and  jurisdictional.'"

            Acevedo-Villalobos  v. Hernandez, 22 F.3d 384, 387 (1st Cir.)
            __________________     _________

            (quoting  Perez-Perez v.  Popular Leasing  Rental, Inc.,  993
                      ___________     _____________________________

            F.2d 281, 283  (1st Cir. 1993) (quoting  Browder v. Director,
                                                     _______    _________

            Dep't  of  Corrections,  434 U.S.  257,  264  (1978))), cert.
            ______________________                                  _____

            denied,  115  S.  Ct.  574  (1994).   In  the  instant  case,
            ______

            appellant did not file its  notice of appeal until  forty-one

                                         -3-
                                          3

            days after entry of the judgment, well outside the thirty-day

            period.  

                 To be sure,  a timely motion to alter  or amend judgment

            pursuant to Fed. R.  Civ. P. 59(e) tolls the  time period for

            filing a  notice of  appeal.   See Fed.  R. App.  P. 4(a)(4).
                                           ___

            Although  appellant's  motion  for  reconsideration  did  not

            specifically invoke Rule 59(e), it  is properly treated as  a

            Rule 59(e) motion  since it sought to set  aside the judgment

            as legally erroneous.  See Lopez  v. Corporacion Azucarera de
                                   ___ _____     ________________________

            Puerto Rico, 938  F.2d 1510, 1513 (1st Cir.  1991).  However,
            ___________

            Rule 59(e) requires a motion to alter  or amend to be "served

            not  later than  10 days  after the  entry of  the judgment."

            Since  appellant's  motion  for  reconsideration  was  served

            outside the  ten-day period, it  did not affect the  time for

            appealing from the judgment.  See Acevedo-Villalobos, 22 F.3d
                                          ___ __________________

            at  389.  Under  the circumstances,  we lack  jurisdiction to

            review the judgment.

                 Although appellant's  notice of appeal  is untimely with

            respect to  the judgment,  it is timely  with respect  to the

            denial  of the motion for reconsideration.  Unfortunately for

            appellant, since  the motion for reconsideration  is properly

            construed as one brought under Rule 59(e), the district court

            was  without jurisdiction  to  grant it  because, as  we have

            explained, it was untimely.  Feinstein v. Moses, 951 F.2d 16,
                                         _________    _____

            21 (1st Cir. 1991).   Accordingly, the district court did not

                                         -4-
                                          4

            err  in denying the  motion for reconsideration,  although it

            need not have reached the merits.1  Id. 
                                                __

                 Affirmed.2  See Loc. R. 27.1.  
                 ________    ___

                                
            ____________________

            1.  Even   if    we   construe    appellant's   motion    for
            reconsideration as a Rule 60(b)  motion, and thus treat it as
            timely, our conclusion is the same.  "Rule 60(b) is a vehicle
            for `extraordinary relief,'"  and "motions invoking the  rule
            should be  granted `only  under exceptional  circumstances.'"
            de la Torre v. Continental  Ins. Co., 15 F.3d 12, 14-15  (1st
            ___________    _____________________
            Cir. 1994) (quoting  Lepore v. Vidockler,  792 F.2d 272,  274
                                 ______    _________
            (1st  Cir. 1986)).    Appellant's motion  for reconsideration
            essentially  reiterated, with  citation  to legal  authority,
            arguments  made in  appellant's reply  to  opposition to  its
            request for  a ruling on  its motion for summary  judgment on
            the  cross-claims.  Under  the circumstances, we  do not find
            any  "exceptional  circumstances"  here,  or  any   abuse  of
            discretion by the district court.  See Feinstein, 951 F.2d at
                                               ___ _________
            21.

            2.  Appellees  request  attorneys'   fee.    A   request  for
            sanctions pursuant  to Fed. R. App. P. 38  must be made in "a
            separately  filed motion."   In the instant  case, appellees'
            motion was not separately filed.   The request for attorneys'
            fees is denied. 

                                         -5-
                                          5