Court Opinion

ID: 2964207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:22:07.875209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:52.523121
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1875

                           ALFREDO G. HUALDE-REDIN, ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                          ROYAL BANK OF PUERTO RICO, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Alfredo G. Hualde-Redin on brief pro se.
            _______________________
            Charles  De Mier-LeBlanc  and  De Corral  & De  Mier on  brief for
            ________________________       _____________________
        appellee Royal Bank of Puerto Rico.
            Mildred Caban  and  Goldman  Antonetti  &  Cordova  on  brief  for
            _____________       ______________________________
        appellees Ramon Dapena, Esq., Jorge  Souss, Esq., Ivonne Palerm, Esq.,
        Goldman   Antonetti  &  Cordova,   Carlos  Del  Valle,   and  American
        International Insurance Co.

                                 ____________________

                                    August 2, 1996

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   The  motion to recuse  Judge Torruella  is
                 __________

            denied.

                 We summarily affirm the dismissal of plaintiffs' action.

            To the  extent plaintiffs were  asking the district  court to

            review,  set  aside, or  effectively  annul the  Commonwealth

            court  orders,  plaintiffs'  action  was  properly  dismissed

            because  the district  court  lacked  jurisdiction to  review

            those orders.   Rooker v.  Fidelity Trust Co., 263  U.S. 413,
                            _____________________________

            415-16 (1923); Lancellotti v. Fay,  909 F.2d 15, 17 (1st Cir.
                           __________________

            1990).   The  remainder of  plaintiffs'  action was  properly

            dismissed because  plaintiffs failed adequately  to state any

            claim  under  either  federal  or  Commonwealth  law  against

            defendants.   The district court did not abuse its discretion

            in  failing to afford  plaintiffs any further  opportunity to

            amend their complaint.  Nor is there any merit in plaintiffs'

            claims of bias.

                 Appellees  ask in  their  brief  for  double  costs  and

            attorneys  fees   to  be  assessed   because  of  appellants'

            repetitive,  frivolous   filings.     Appellants'  litigation

            tactics  are abusive.   Their filings are  extremely verbose,

            repetitive, and  often incoherent.   They  continue to  press

            arguments  which  we  have   rejected  in  appellants'  other

            appeals.   They  do not  reserve  their reply  brief for  new

            arguments,  but rather repeat at length material presented in

            their  main brief.   And their  appeals have  been frivolous.

                                         -2-

            Nevertheless, we  must deny  appellees' request  because they

            did  not present  their  request for  sanctions  in a  motion

            separate from their brief.   See Fed. R. App. P.  38 and 1994
                                         ___

            advisory committee note.

                 Affirmed.
                 ________

                                         -3-