Court Opinion

ID: 2963521
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:11:25.52802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:41.822460
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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

                              _________________________

          No. 95-1006

                                 JUAN ANTONIO GARCIA,

                            INSURANCE COMMISSIONER, ETC.,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                            ISLAND PROGRAM DESIGNER, INC.,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                              __________________________

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                Intervenor, Appellee.

                              _________________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                [Hon. Gilberto Gierbolini, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                           __________________________

                              _________________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Stahl,

                                    Circuit Judges.
                                    ______________

                              _________________________

               Carlos J.  Morales Bauza and Rossello-Rentas & Rabell-Mendez
               ________________________     _______________________________
          on brief for appellant.
               Loretta  C. Argrett,  Assistant  Attorney  General, Gary  R.
               ___________________                                 ________
          Allen, Bruce R.  Ellisen, and Laurie Snyder,  Tax Division, Dep't
          _____  _________________      _____________
          of Justice, and Guillermo  Gil, United States Attorney,  on brief
                          ______________
          for intervenor.

                              _________________________
                                    August 9, 1995
                              _________________________

                    Per  Curiam.   This case  involves a  dispute over  the
                    Per  Curiam.
                    ___________

          relative priority to be accorded to federal tax claims against an

          insolvent  health maintenance  organization.    After an  earlier

          opinion in  which we  held that the  federal court  had exclusive

          jurisdiction  to hear  and determine  the  competing claims,  see
                                                                        ___

          Garcia v. Island Program Designer, Inc., 4 F.3d 57, 60 (1st  Cir.
          ______    _____________________________

          1993),   the  district  court  rejected  the  position  urged  by

          appellant, Puerto Rico's Insurance  Commissioner, and ruled  that

          the  tax claims  asserted by the  Internal Revenue  Service (IRS)

          were entitled to  priority over the claims  of unpaid health-care

          providers.  See  Garcia v. Island Program Designer,  Inc., 875 F.
                      ___  ______    ______________________________

          Supp. 940, 944  (D.P.R. 1994).   The Insurance Commissioner  then

          prosecuted the instant appeal.

                    We  will not  dawdle.   The court  below has  written a

          careful,  well-reasoned  opinion,  correctly  applying the  legal

          doctrines  articulated  by  the Supreme  Court  in  Department of
                                                              _____________

          Treasury  v.  Fabe,  113  S.  Ct.  2202  (1993),  and  adequately
          ________      ____

          exploring  the interplay among  the federal priority  statute, 31

          U.S.C.    3713, the McCarran-Ferguson  Act, 15 U.S.C.    1012(b),

          and local law, particularly P.R. Laws  Ann. tit. 26,   1914.   It

          is our preferred  practice that when, as now, "a  trial court has

          produced a first-rate  work product, a reviewing  tribunal should

          hesitate  to wax  longiloquent  simply  to  hear  its  own  words

          resonate."   In re San Juan  Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire  Litig., 989
                       _______________________________________________

          F.2d 36, 38 (1st Cir. 1993).  That wise adage is fully applicable

          here.   Accordingly, we affirm  the entry of summary  judgment in

                                          2

          the IRS's favor  for substantially the reasons  elucidated in the

          opinion below.

                    Withal, we add  one flourish.   In the district  court,

          appellant  essayed only  a  fleeting  reference  to  the  Chevron
                                                                    _______

          principle.   See Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense
                       ___ ___________________    _________________________

          Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837  (1984).  On appeal, the Commissioner
          _____________

          makes Chevron the centerpiece  of his argument.  This is both too
                _______

          late and too little.

                    In the first  place, it is our settled  rule that legal

          theories   not   developed   in  the   trial   court   cannot  be

          splendiforously unveiled on  appeal.  See Teamsters,  Chauffeurs,
                                                ___ _______________________

          Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local No. 59 v. Superline Transp.
          ____________________________________________    _________________

          Co., 953 F.2d 17,  21 (1st Cir. 1992).  In  the second place, the
          ___

          Chevron  principle does not apply "to agency litigating positions
          _______

          that  are   wholly  unsupported   by  regulations,  rulings,   or

          administrative practice."   Bowen v. Georgetown Univ.  Hosp., 488
                                      _____    _______________________

          U.S. 204, 212 (1988); accord United States v. 29 Cartons of * * *
                                ______ _____________    ___________________

          An Article  of  Food,  987  F.2d  33, 38  n.6  (1st  Cir.  1993).
          ____________________

          Consequently, it would  be wholly inappropriate for  us to defer,

          as appellant importunes, to what  strikes us as nothing more than

          a position of convenience.  In  all events, to win our allegiance

          an administrative agency's  statutory interpretation must "flow[]

          rationally  from  a  permissible construction  of  the  statute,"

          Strickland v. Commissioner,  Me. Dep't of  Human Servs., 48  F.3d
          __________    _________________________________________

          12, 17 (1st Cir. 1995), and cannot be "`arbitrary, capricious, or

          manifestly  contrary  to the  statute.'"    id. at  18  (citation
                                                      ___

                                          3

          omitted).  Appellant's interpretation of  P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 26,

            1914 fails this test.

                    We need  go no further.   The judgment of  the district

          court must be summarily affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. 
                                             ___

          Affirmed.
          Affirmed.
          ________

                                          4