Court Opinion

ID: 2964717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:30:02.24196+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:48:57.934897
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1879

                                HECTOR PAGES, ET AL.,

                                Plaintiffs, Appellees,

                                          v.

                                   MANUEL FEINGOLD,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     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,
                                           ___________
                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Harry Hertzberg on brief for appellant.
            _______________
            Jesus E. Cuza, Ina M. Berlingeri-Vincenty and Goldman Antonetti &
            _____________  __________________________     ___________________
        Cordova on brief for appellees.
        _______

                                 ____________________

                                     May 6, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.   Upon  careful  review of  the  briefs and
                 ___________

            record,  we conclude  that  this appeal  clearly presents  no

            substantial   question  and   that  summary   disposition  is

            appropriate.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.  
                          ___

                 We further conclude that, for  the reasons stated in the

            May  8, 1996,  order,  the district  court  acted within  its

            discretion   in     entering   default   against   defendant.

            Defendant's repeated failures  to comply  with discovery  and

            other orders justified that  sanction, of which defendant had

            been warned.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C).  
                        _____

                 Further, for the reasons stated in the opinion and order

            dated  June  7, 1996,  Pages v.  Feingold,  928 F.  Supp. 148
                                   _____     ________

            (D.P.R. 1996),  the district court properly  entered judgment

            for  plaintiff.    The  district court's  findings  that  the

            letters  written  by  defendant  were false  and  maliciously

            published, that plaintiff suffered damages thereby,  and that

            plaintiff was a private figure,  were amply supported by  the

            evidence  presented at  trial and consistent  with applicable

            Puerto Rico law as cited by the district court.  And, we find

            no  factual or  legal basis  for  defendant's assertion  of a

            qualified  immunity defense,  particularly  in  light of  the

            default.

                 The  district  court did  not  abuse  its discretion  in

            denying defendant's  motion to  recuse.  The  various remarks

            about which  defendant complains  do not create  a reasonable

                                         -2-

            doubt  concerning  the district  judge's  impartiality.   See
                                                                      ___

            United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33, 37 (1st Cir. 1991).
            _____________    _____

                 Plaintiff's  motion  to  dismiss  this  appeal  and  for

            sanctions  is  granted in  part.   In  light of  the numerous
                           ________________

            violations  of the  appellate  rules regarding  the form  and

            content of the brief  and appendix, we are persuaded  that an

            award of sanctions is appropriate.  See Fed. R. App.  P. 28 &
                                                ___

            30;  Reyes-Garcia v. Rodriguez & Del Valle, Inc., 82 F.3d 11,
                 ____________    ___________________________

            14-16 (1st Cir. 1996).   Therefore, we award double  costs to
                                                   ___________________

            plaintiff,  to   be  taxed  jointly   and  severally  against

            defendant and his attorney.  See Fed. R. App. P. 38.
                                         ___

                 Affirmed.
                 ________

                                         -3-