Court Opinion

ID: 2964631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:28:36.973799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:56.124428
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

          No. 96-1883

                   ESTANCIAS LA PONDEROSA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
                                Plaintiff - Appellant,

                                          v.

                          HILDA SOLTERO-HARRINGTON, ET AL.,
                               Defendants - Appellees.

                                 ____________________

          Nos. 96-1992
               96-1993
               96-1994

                   ESTANCIAS LA PONDEROSA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

                                          v.

                          HILDA SOLTERO-HARRINGTON, ET AL.,
                               Defendants - Appellants.

                                 ____________________

                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                   [Hon. Daniel R. Dom nguez, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                                Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________

                             and Saris,* District Judge. 
                                         ______________

                                _____________________

               Luis A. Mel ndez-Albizu, with whom Luis S nchez-Betances and
               _______________________            _____________________
                              
          ____________________

          *  Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.

          S nchez-Betances & Sifre were on brief for Estancias La Ponderosa
          ________________________
          Development Corporation.
               Jos   Luis  Novas-Due o  for  Hilda  Soltero-Harrington  and
               _______________________
          Rafael Durand-Manzanal.

                                 ____________________

                                    April 24, 1997
                                 ____________________

                                         -2-

                    Per Curiam.   Upon  due consideration of  the appellate
                    Per Curiam.
                    __________

          briefs, arguments of counsel  and record in this case,  we affirm

          the  decision of the district  court for the  reasons provided in

          its  thorough  and well  reasoned  opinion.    See  Estancias  La
                                                         ___  _____________

          Ponderosa  Develop. Corp. v.  Harrington, 195  B.R. 210  (D. P.R.
          _________________________     __________

          1996).   In view of the fact that  the result on the merits is in

          favor  of  the appellee,  we need  not decide  the jurisdictional

          issues raised by appellee on its cross-appeals.  See Hachikian v.
                                                           ___ _________

          FDIC, 96  F.3d 502, 506 n.4  (1st Cir. 1996) ("'It  is a familiar
          ____

          tenet that when an appeal presents a jurisdictional quandary, yet

          the merits of the underlying issue, if reached, will in any event

          be  resolved  in  favor  of  the  party  challenging the  court's

          jurisdiction, then  the  court  may  forsake  the  jurisdictional

          riddle and simply dispose of the appeal on the merits.'" (quoting

          United  States v. Stoller, 78 F.3d 710, 715 (1st Cir. 1996)); see
          ______________    _______                                     ___

          also Institut Pasteur v.  Cambridge Biotech Corp., 104  F.3d 489,
          ____ ________________     _______________________

          492 (1st Cir. 1997) (applying rule in bankruptcy case).

                    Affirmed, with costs on appeal awarded to defendants.
                    Affirmed, with costs on appeal awarded to defendants.
                    ____________________________________________________

                                         -3-