Court Opinion

ID: 2964463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:26:06.20544+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:56.627280
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

        No. 96-1384

                                  CARL P. PIMENTEL,

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

                     JACOBSEN FISHING COMPANY, INC., IN PERSONAM,
                                                     ____________
                            AND THE F/V VALKYRIE, IN REM,
                                                  ______

                               Defendants, Appellants.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                 [Hon. Morris E. Lasker,* Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                          __________________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

             Robert  E. Collins,  with whom  Thomas E.  Clinton and  Clinton &
             __________________              __________________      _________
        Muzyka, P.C. were on brief for appellants.
        ____________
             Lawrence J. Mullen, with whom Timothy R. McHugh and Hoch & McHugh
             __________________            _________________     _____________
        were on brief for appellee.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                  December 23, 1996
                                                     
                                 ____________________

                            
        ____________________

             *Of the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

                    CYR, Circuit  Judge.  Appellants Jacobsen  Fishing Co.,
                    CYR, Circuit  Judge.
                         ______________

          Inc. and the Fishing  Vessel Valkyrie (collectively:  "Jacobsen")

          appeal  from a  district  court judgment  holding them  liable in

          damages for severing a  submerged cable carrying electrical power

          to  a small island owned by plaintiff-appellee Carl Pimentel.  As

          all claims raised on  appeal were either unpreserved or  patently

          meritless,  we  affirm the  district  court  judgment and  impose

          monetary sanctions against Jacobsen  and its counsel as requested

          by appellee. 

                                          I
                                          I

                                      DISCUSSION
                                      DISCUSSION
                                      __________

                    First, Jacobsen has not approached the required  demon-

          stration of clear error  in its frontal attack on the findings of

          fact  made by the  trial judge.   See Johnson  v. Watts Regulator
                                            ___ _______     _______________

          Co.,  63 F.3d 1129, 1138  (1st Cir. 1995)  ("[W]hen there are two
          ___

          permissible  views  of  the  evidence,  the  factfinder's  choice

          between  them cannot  be  clearly erroneous.").   In  particular,

          Pimentel presented testimony by the  Captain of the Valkyrie that

          the helmsman  knew the location  of the  submerged cables.   As a

          general rule, credibility determinations are rather well insulat-

          ed from appellate  challenge.  See Gamma  Audio & Video,  Inc. v.
                                         ___ ___________________________

          Ean-Chea,  11 F.3d 1106, 1115  (1st Cir. 1993)  (noting that "the
          ________

          trial judge is in the best position to assess the credibility  of

          witnesses").  So it is here.1  
                              
          ____________________

               1Similarly, Jacobsen's assault on  the trial judge's refusal
          to draw an  adverse inference from an inadvertent  destruction of
          evidence suggests neither clear error nor an abuse of discretion.

                                          2

                    Second,  having presented  no evidence  on compensatory
                                               __

          damages, Jacobsen's contention  that the award made  by the trial

          judge  was excessive utterly fails to  establish error, let alone

          clear error.  See Reilly v. United States, 863 F.2d 149, 166 (1st
                        ___ ______    _____________

          Cir. 1988) (noting that trial judge's factual findings, including

          its  "determination of  damages,"  are reviewed  "only for  clear

          error").  Furthermore, Jacobsen's  remaining claims     including

          its  contention that  the  district  court improperly  reimbursed

          Pimentel for costs incurred for the services of an expert witness

             were not preserved below.   See Poliquin v. Garden Way,  Inc.,
                                         ___ ________    _________________

          989 F.2d 527, 531 (1st Cir. 1993).  

                    Accordingly, we  limit further discussion  to the vari-

          able interest rate  calculation employed by the district court in

          awarding  prejudgment  interest.    The  district  court  awarded

          prejudgment interest  at a  variable rate, utilizing  the average

          price of 52-week Treasury Bills for each year within the relevant

          prejudgment  period.   Recourse to  a  variable interest  rate is

          neither unprecedented, see George's  Radio & Television Co., Inc.
                                 ___ ______________________________________

          v. Insurance Co.  of N. Am., 536 F. Supp. 681,  685 (D.Md.), judg-
             ________________________                                 _____

          ment amended, 549 F. Supp. 1014 (D.Md. 1982), nor unreasonable per
          ____ _______                                                  ___

          se,  especially since  the  result normally  will approximate  an
          __

          acceptable average  for the prejudgment period,  see Cement Div.,
                                                           ___ ____________

          Nat'l Gypsum Co. v. City of Milwaukee, 31 F.3d 581, 587 (7th Cir.
          ________________    _________________

          1994), aff'd, 115 S. Ct. 2091 (1995); Ingersoll Milling Mach. Co.
                 _____                          ___________________________

                              
          ____________________

          See Blinzler v.  Marriott Int'l,  Inc., 81 F.3d  1148, 1158  (1st
          ___ ________     _____________________
          Cir. 1996).

                                          3

          v. M/V/ Bodena,  829 F.2d 293, 311 (2d  Cir. 1987), cert. denied,
             ___________                                      _____ ______

          484 U.S. 1042 (1988);  Bonsor S.A. DE C.V.  v. Tug L.A.  Barrios,
                                 ___________________     _________________

          796 F.2d 776, 786-87 (5th Cir. 1986).   Indeed, we have suggested

          that utilization  of a  prime rate  average would be  reasonable.

          See City of Boston v. S.S. Texaco Texas, 773 F.2d 1396, 1401 (1st
          ___ ______________    _________________

          Cir. 1985) (dicta).   Moreover, Jacobsen managed no demonstration

          that the variable-rate prejudgment  interest award in the instant

          case  constituted an abuse  of discretion.   See Independent Bulk
                                                       ___ ________________

          Transp., Inc. v. The Vessel "Moriana Abaco", 676 F.2d 23,  25 (2d
          _____________    __________________________

          Cir. 1982). 

                    Lastly,  we consider  Pimentel's motion  for sanctions.

          Federal Rule of Appellate  Procedure 38 states:   "If a court  of

          appeals determines  that an  appeal is  frivolous, it  may . .  .

          award just damages and  single or double costs to  the appellee."

          An appeal is frivolous "if the result is obvious or the arguments
                                                           __

          are 'wholly without merit.'"  Cronin v. Town of Amesbury, 81 F.3d
                                        ______    ________________

          257,  261  (1st  Cir.  1996) (emphasis  added)  (quoting  Wescott
                                                                    _______

          Constr.  Corp. v.  Fireman's Fund of  N.J., 996 F.2d  14, 17 (1st
          ______________     _______________________

          Cir. 1993)).  This, unquestionably, is such a case.

                    The  claim  that  Jacobsen  is not  liable  in  damages

          directly challenged the trial  judge's factual findings,  thereby

          engaging  one of the more formidable standards of review known to

          federal appellate practice.  See Johnson, 63 F.3d at 1138.  Then,
                                       ___ _______

          relying  on even  shakier ground,  Jacobsen mounted  an appellate

          challenge to the size  of the award without having  presented any

          evidence  on damages.  Finally, the arguments Jacobsen raised for

                                          4

          the first time on appeal did not begin to suggest "plain  error,"

          see  United States  v. Olano,  507 U.S.  725, 734  (1993),  as no
          ___  _____________     _____

          "miscarriage of justice" obtained.  See Poliquin 989 F.2d at 531.
                                              ___ ________

          Thus, it was clear  from the outset that Jacobsen's  prospects of

          success  on appeal were all but nonexistent, and that no "respon-

          sible  litigant or lawyer should have gone forward with an appeal

          in these straitened circumstances."  La Amiga del Pueblo, Inc. v.
                                               _________________________

          Robles,  937 F.2d 689, 692  (1st Cir. 1991)  (appellate attack on
          ______

          jury  verdict  held  frivolous  given  conflicting  evidence  and

          failure to preserve claims). 

                    Although  at first blush  Jacobsen's brief  suggests an

          appeal with  some substance, the illusion  dissolves upon cursory

          investigation.   Its many citations to  authorities supposedly on

          point frequently turn out to  be readily distinguishable.   Unfa-

          vorable  First  Circuit  authority  frequently  is  bypassed  for

          somewhat less unfavorable  authorities from other  jurisdictions.

          The  unhelpfulness  of  these  litigation  tactics  exposed  both

          Jacobsen and its  counsel to sanctions.2   Commonwealth Elec. Co.
                                                     ______________________

          v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard & Nantucket S.S. Auth., 754 F.2d
             ____________________________________________________
                              
          ____________________

               2Counsel continued  to press these tactics  in opposition to
          the motion  for sanctions,  notwithstanding a prior  warning from
          Pimentel's counsel that a motion for sanctions would be forthcom-
          ing in the event of a frivolous appeal.  Jacobsen's opposition to
          the motion  for sanctions  nonetheless indicated that  though bad
          faith is not  an essential element of frivolousness,  it may be a
          necessary  predicate  for sanctions  under  Fed. R.  App.  P. 38,
          citing as authority a  single case from another  circuit.  In  so
          doing,  counsel conveniently  ignored longstanding  First Circuit
          caselaw which holds, unequivocally, that Rule 38 sanctions may be
          imposed  without a finding of  bad faith.   E.g., Applewood Land-
                                                      ____  _______________
          scape  & Nursery Co. v.  Hollingsworth, 884 F.2d  1502, 1508 (1st
          ____________________     _____________
          Cir. 1989).  

                                          5

          46, 49 (1st Cir. 1985) (imposing sanctions on counsel for submit-

          ting  brief  which  "added  a significant  burden  on  appellee's

          counsel and the court"); see also Fed. R. App. P. 38; 28 U.S.C.  
                                   ___ ____

          1927  ("Any attorney . .  . who so  multiplies the proceedings in

          any case  unreasonably  and vexatiously  may be  required by  the

          court  to  satisfy personally  the  excess  costs, expenses,  and

          attorneys' fees reasonably incurred  because of such  conduct.");

          Cronin,  81 F.3d at 261-62 (imposing sanctions under Fed. R. App.
          ______

          P. 38 and 28 U.S.C.   1927 for frivolous appeal).

                                          II
                                          II

                                      CONCLUSION
                                      CONCLUSION
                                      __________

                    The district court judgment  is affirmed.  Double costs

          are  assessed exclusively against Jacobsen; $8,406.00 in attorney

          fees to appellee's counsel  are assessed directly and exclusively

          against appellant's  counsel, the firm of Clinton & Muzyka, P.C.,

          and Messrs. Clinton and Collins, jointly and severally.

                    So ordered.
                    __________

                                          6