Court Opinion

ID: 2963049
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:05:43.154037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:37.631908
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          December 21, 1994                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-1041                              CECELIA PALMISANO FRUSHER,                                      Appellant,                                          v.                      BASKIN-ROBBINS ICE CREAM COMPANY, ET AL.,                                      Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND                     [Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                  Cyr, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________                          Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge, and
                                  ____________________                                Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                       _____________                                 ____________________            Cecelia P. Frusher on brief pro se.
            __________________            Mark W. Freel and Edwards & Angell on brief for appellee.
            _____________     ________________                                 ____________________                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  Cecelia  P. Frusher appeals a judgment
                      __________            of  the district court affirming a decision by the bankruptcy            court  in  an  adversary  proceeding  initiated  by appellant            against  her  former franchisor.    The  crux of  appellant's            argument  is that  the  bankruptcy court  erred in  resolving            against  her the  fact-dominated liability  issues underlying            her claims  of misrepresentation,  fraud and deceit.   Having            carefully reviewed  the briefs  and relevant portions  of the            record in this six-day bench trial, we find no clear error in            the bankruptcy court's factual  findings and no suggestion of            legal error.  See In re G.S.F. Corp., 938 F.2d 1467 (1st Cir.
                          ___ __________________            1991).1   Accordingly, we need  not reach the  assignments of            error relating to damages.  We see no support for appellant's            further contention  that the decisions below  were influenced            by gender bias.                        Affirmed. 
                      ________                                                       
            ____________________            1.  The parties' briefs join issue on the applicable standard            of review in this court following the district court's review            under Bankruptcy Rule 8013.   We adhere to the rule that this            court "independently reviews the bankruptcy court's decision,            applying the  clearly erroneous standard to  findings of fact            and de novo  review to conclusions  of law."  GSF  Corp., 938
                                                          _________            F.2d  at 1474.  Any errors committed by the district court in            findings  of fact during its  review are rendered harmless by            our independent review, so we  do not address those arguments            in appellant's brief.