Court Opinion

ID: 2965723
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:44:08.050572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:37:27.406437
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit

No. 98-1755

                          UNITED STATES,

                       Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                v.

                        TWENTY ONE ITEMS,
                  Valued at $24,663.12, et al.,

                      Defendants, Appellees,
                       ____________________

                   ALFONSO CARDONA ARRENDONDO,

                       Claimant, Appellant.

           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

          [Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., U.S. District Judge]

                              Before

                     Torruella, Chief Judge,
                Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                   and Lipez, Circuit Judge.
                                

     Alfonso Cardona Arrendondo on brief pro se.
     Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Miguel A. Fernandez,
Chief, Civil Division, and Jacqueline D. Novas, Assistant United
States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

MARCH 4, 1999

                                
            Per Curiam.  Claimant Cardona-Arredondo appeals from
    the denial of his motion to reconsider or amend the judgment to
    include an award of interest.  Below, the government had argued
    that interest was not recoverable in this case under the
    governing caselaw; but in this court the government concedes
    that the relevant caselaw does not bar an award of interest.
              Instead, the government argues here that the denial
    of interest should be affirmed because, (1) claimant's motion
    to reconsider or amend the judgment was untimely, or (2)
    claimant is estopped from demanding interest by the doctrine of
    "accord and satisfaction."
              Having carefully reviewed the briefs in light of the
    entire record on appeal, we reject the government's arguments. 
    First, the doctrine of "accord and satisfaction" is inapposite
    to the facts of this case.  Second, the motion for
    reconsideration or to amend the judgment was timely filed.  The
    ten-day time for the filing of the motion ran from entry of the
    court's judgment on February 25, 1998.  It did not run from 
    the June 10, 1997 entry of the order dismissing the
    government's claim on limitations grounds, as the government
    contends.  The June 10, 1997, judgment was not "final" because
    it did not resolve all issues still pending between the
    parties.  
              Since the government has conceded the only legal
    issue raised in this appeal, and argues no supportable
    alternative basis for an affirmance, the order denying an award
                                  -2-
    of interest is vacated, and the case is remanded to the
    district court for a determination of the amount of interest
    owed to the claimant.
              Vacated and remanded for further proceedings
    consistent with this decision.