Court Opinion

ID: 2964482
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:26:20.922293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:56.926043
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                              _________________________

          No. 96-1729

                          JESUS RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                           IBERIA LINEAS AEREAS DE ESPANA,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                              _________________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                              _________________________

                                        Before

                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges,
                                            ______________

                            and Woodlock,* District Judge.
                                           ______________

                              __________________________

               Alberto Acevedo Colom on brief for appellant.
               _____________________
               James  D.  Noel,  III  and  McConnell  Valdes on  brief  for
               _____________________       _________________
          appellee.

                              __________________________

                                December 9, 1996

                              __________________________

          ______________
          *Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.

                    Per  Curiam.   This appeal stems  from a  suit alleging
                    Per  Curiam.
                    ___________

          failure   to  pay   proper  overtime   and  other   extraordinary

          compensation in violation of both federal statutes and local law.

          The  plaintiff, Jesus  Rafael  Rodriguez  Rodriguez  (Rodriguez),

          alleges that his former employer, Iberia Lineas  Aereas de Espana

          (Iberia), a commercial passenger  airline, underpaid him during a

          portion of the period in which he served as its traffic manger at

          the Luis  Munoz Marin  International Airport in  Carolina, Puerto

          Rico.    Iberia  defended  on the  ground  that  the  plaintiff's

          position was "administrative"  and-or "executive" in nature,  and

          therefore exempt from the statutory sweep.

                    The district  court conducted a  three-day bench  trial

          concerning Rodriguez's allegations.  The court thereafter wrote a

          carefully reasoned opinion in which it concluded  that Iberia had

          carried the devoir of  persuasion in regard to the  applicability

          of the cited  exemptions.  See Rodriguez v. Iberia,  923 F. Supp.
                                     ___ _________    ______

          304 (D.P.R. 1996).   The court thereupon dismissed  the complaint

          with prejudice and entered judgment for the defendant.  Rodriguez

          appeals.

                    Having  read the entire record and carefully considered

          the parties' briefs,  we find  no basis to  disturb the  district

          court's  decision.    Moreover,  we  have  determined  that  oral

          argument of this appeal would not advance the decisional process.

          In the final analysis, we regard this as a suitable case in which

          to act upon our previously stated belief that when "a trial court

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

                                          2

          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).    Consequently,  we affirm  the

          judgment for substantially the  reasons elucidated in the opinion

          below.  We add only a brief comment.

                    Rodriguez  rehashes the  evidence and  essentially asks

          that we reweigh the facts  de novo.  Our proper  office, however,

          is  much  more  circumscribed.    Following  a  bench  trial,  an

          appellate court is  not warranted in rejecting  the trial judge's

          "findings of  fact or conclusions drawn therefrom  unless, on the

          whole of the  record, [the  court of appeals]  form[s] a  strong,

          unyielding belief that  a mistake  has been made."   Cumpiano  v.
                                                               ________

          Banco Santander P.R., 902 F.2d 148, 152 (1st Cir. 1990); see also
          ____________________                                     ___ ____

          Fed.  R. Civ. P. 52(a).  Contrary to Rodriguez's suggestion, this

          paradigm applies  full force to  findings of fact  concerning the

          significance (or  lack of significance) of  documentary evidence.

          See Reliance Steel Prods. Co. v. National Fire Ins. Co., 880 F.2d
          ___ _________________________    ______________________

          575, 576 (1st  Cir. 1989);  RCI Northeast Servs.  Div. v.  Boston
                                      __________________________     ______

          Edison Co., 822 F.2d 199, 202-03 (1st Cir. 1987).
          __________

                    The   clearly   erroneous   standard   of   review   is

          determinative of the outcome here.  The record, read objectively,

          does not yield a conviction that a mistake has been  made.  Thus,

          clear error is clearly absent.

                    This does not mean,  of course, that the case  was open

          and  shut at the district court level.   But once the trier found
                    ___________________________

          the facts, the dynamics changed.  Where, as here, the trial court

                                          3

          has  indulged no  error of  law and  its conclusions  following a

          jury-waived   trial  are   dependent  upon   its  choices   among

          conflicting facts  and its elections  as to  which inferences  to

          draw  from the  facts as  found, appellate  tribunals are  not at

          liberty  to meddle.   See Foster v.  Dalton, 71 F.3d  52, 55 (1st
                                ___ ______     ______

          Cir. 1995); Irons v. FBI, 811 F.2d 681, 684 (1st Cir. 1987).  Nor
                      _____    ___

          do the appellant's criticisms of certain testimony suffice to tip

          the  balance; credibility calls  are for the  district court, not

          for the court of appeals.   See Anthony v. Sundlun, 952 F.2d 603,
                                      ___ _______    _______

          606 (1st Cir. 1991).

                    We  need go no further.   The judgment  of the district

          court is summarily affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R.27.1.
                                        ___

                    Affirmed.
                    Affirmed.
                    ________

                                          4