Court Opinion

ID: 2964593
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:28:01.603787+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:58.002999
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                              _________________________

          No. 96-1770

                            MARIO GARCIA-QUINTERO, ET AL.,
                                Plaintiffs, Appellees,

                                          v.

                         COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, ET AL.,
                               Defendants, Appellants.

                              _________________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                              _________________________

                   [Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                              _________________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________
                            Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________
                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                              _________________________

               Carlos Lugo-Fiol, Solicitor  General, Edda  Serrano-Blasini,
               ________________                      _____________________
          Deputy  Solicitor  General,  and   Edgardo  Rodriguez-Quilichini,
                                             _____________________________
          Assistant Solicitor General, on brief for appellants.
               David  P. Freedman, Mario J.  Pab n and O'Neill  & Borges on
               __________________  _______________     _________________
          brief for appellee First National Bank of Boston.
               Jose M. Mu oz-Silva, Charles A. Cuprill-Hernandez, Carlos A.
               ___________________  ____________________________  _________
          Surillo Pumarada and Charles  A. Cuprill-Hernandez Law Offices on
          ________________     _________________________________________
          various briefs for appellee Northwestern Trading Co.

                              _________________________

                                    MARCH 11, 1997

                              _________________________

                    Per Curiam.  This case had its genesis in  racketeering
                    Per Curiam.
                    __________

          charges filed by  the Puerto Rico Department  of Justice (PR-DOJ)

          against,  inter  alia,   Delta  Petroleum  (PR),  Ltd.,   Delta's
                    _____  ____

          president, (Mario O.  Garcia-Quintero), and Northwestern  Trading

          Co.   Coincident with the filing of those charges, PR-DOJ seized,

          without   prior  judicial   authorization,   two  bank   accounts

          maintained by  Delta.  One such account was held by Banco Central

          Hispa o for the benefit of First National Bank of Boston (Bank of

          Boston).  The second was held directly by Bank of Boston.

                    Garcia-Quintero,  Bank  of  Boston,   and  Northwestern

          Trading  pursued various  avenues of  relief.   During this  time

          frame,  however,   Delta  became   the  subject  of   Chapter  11

          proceedings in the bankruptcy court; a trustee was appointed; and

          Bank of Boston opted  to remove an earlier-filed action  from the

          commonwealth courts to the bankruptcy court.  In due season, Bank

          of  Boston  cross-claimed  against   PR-DOJ,  alleging  that  the

          aforementioned seizures were illegal and should be nullified.1

                    After considerable procedural skirmishing, the district

          court withdrew its earlier reference to the bankruptcy court  and

          assumed jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding.  Both Bank of

          Boston and Northwestern Trading  then moved for summary judgment.

          PR-DOJ did not  file an opposition  to either  motion.  By  order

          dated  August 9, 1995,  the district  court granted  the motions.

                              
          ____________________

               1Throughout  this opinion,  we use  "PR-DOJ" as  a shorthand
          reference for  all appellants (who  include not  only PR-DOJ  but
          also  the Commonwealth  of Puerto  Rico  and divers  officers and
          agents of the Commonwealth).

                                          2

          PR-DOJ  moved for reconsideration, Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), but the

          court, by order dated February 5, 1996, refused to budge.  PR-DOJ

          now appeals.  We summarily affirm.

                    The  district court has  written two  orders explaining

          its reasoning,  and we see scant  need to wax longiloquent.   See
                                                                        ___

          Lawton v. State Mut. Life Assurance Co. of Am., 101 F.3d 218, 220
          ______    ____________________________________

          (1st  Cir. 1996)  (stating that  "when a  lower court  produces a

          comprehensive, well-reasoned decision, an appellate  court should

          refrain from writing  at length to no other end  than to hear its

          own  words resonate");  In re  San Juan  Dupont Plaza  Hotel Fire
                                  _________________________________________

          Litig.,  989 F.2d 36, 38 (1st Cir. 1993) (similar).  Accordingly,
          ______

          we affirm  the judgment for substantially  the reasons elucidated

          in the district court's orders, adding a few brief comments.

                    1.   It is  important to bear in  mind that this appeal
                    1.

          tests only the denial of PR-DOJ's motion for reconsideration.  In

          considering  such  an assignment  of error,  we will  not reverse

          unless the record displays  a palpable abuse of discretion.   See
                                                                        ___

          Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Precision Valley Aviation, Inc., 26 F.3d
          _____________________    _______________________________

          220, 227  (1st Cir. 1994);  Fragoso v.  Lopez, 991 F.2d  878, 888
                                      _______     _____

          (1st Cir. 1993).  We detect none here.

                    2.   PR-DOJ  vigorously  (if  belatedly)  contests  the
                    2.

          district court's  jurisdiction, and  urges that the  court should

          have  reconsidered because  the removed  action should  have been

          remanded to the  commonwealth courts.   We need  not address  the

          obvious  question anent the  existence of  appellate jurisdiction

          vis- -vis the  denial  of  a  motion  to  remand,  see  generally
                                                             ___  _________

                                          3

          Thermtron  Prods., Inc.  v.  Hermansdorfer, 423  U.S. 336  350-52
          _______________________      _____________

          (1976),  inasmuch  as the  appellant's  attacks  on the  district

          court's subject matter jurisdiction fail.

                    A  federal court appropriately exercises subject matter

          jurisdiction over state court claims upon removal when the claims

          are  sufficiently "related"  to bankruptcy  proceedings.   See 28
                                                                     ___

          U.S.C.    1334, 1452 (1994). "[T]he  test for determining whether

          a  civil  proceeding is  related  to  bankruptcy  is whether  the

          outcome of that  proceeding could conceivably have  any effect on

          the  estate  being administered  in  bankruptcy."   In  re G.S.F.
                                                              _____________

          Corp.,  938 F.2d  1467, 1475  (1st Cir.  1991) (quoting  Pacor v.
          _____                                                    _____

          Higgins, 743  F.2d 984, 994 (3d  Cir. 1984)).  In  this case, the
          _______

          district court properly exercised jurisdiction over the claims to

          compel the return of the seized property because those claims had

          a direct and significant  effect on the bankruptcy estate.2   See
                                                                        ___

          United States  v. Star Rte. Box  1328, 137 B.R. 802,  805 (D. Or.
          _____________     ___________________

          1992) (holding  that a  case involving federal  civil forfeitures

          satisfied  the  relatedness test).    Moreover,  the claims  were

          properly  withdrawn by  the  district court  from the  bankruptcy

          court.  See 28 U.S.C.   157(d) (1994).
                  ___

                    3.     PR-DOJ  offers  as  an   additional  reason  for
                    3.
                              
          ____________________

               2To be  sure, PR-DOJ  emphasizes that the  issues concerning
          the seized  property depend  primarily on Puerto  Rico forfeiture
          law.    But  "federal  courts  are  not  lightly  to   relinquish
          jurisdiction, and  . . . even  a difficult issue of  state law or
          parallel pending state litigation  is not automatically a warrant
          to abstain."  Lundborg v. Phoenix Leasing, Inc., 91 F.3d 265, 272
                        ________    _____________________
          (1st  Cir. 1996).   Thus, the  district court  did not  abuse its
          considerable discretion by deeming itself competent to  determine
          straightforward issues of Puerto Rico law.

                                          4

          reconsideration  its complaint  that the  district court  entered

          summary judgment without  offering it an opportunity  to mount an

          opposition.  This is  sheer persiflage.  The record  reveals that

          PR-DOJ  had  ample opportunity  to  oppose  the summary  judgment

          motions, and  instead neglected  to do  so.3   What is  more, the

          district court did not grant the motions merely because they were

          unopposed; rather, the court,  following settled precedent,  see,
                                                                       ___

          e.g., Kelly v. United States, 924  F.2d 355, 358 (1st Cir. 1991);
          ____  _____    _____________

          Mendez  v.  Banco  Popular,  900  F.2d  4,  7  (1st  Cir.  1990),
          ______      ______________

          considered the motions on their merits, in light of the record as

          constituted, and determined that judgment in favor of the movants

          was legally appropriate.

                    The sockdolager,  of course, is that  PR-DOJ, even now,

          has not suggested any  credible reason why Bank of  Boston and/or

          Northwestern Trading are not entitled to judgment.  The claimants

          are  parties  possessing  cognizable   interests  in  the  seized

          property.    See P.R.  Laws Ann.  tit. 34,     1723 (1991).   The
                       ___

          criminal proceedings  fizzled out,  and under  the law  of Puerto

          Rico,  acquittal  on  criminal  charges  renders  a  governmental

          seizure of  the acquitted person's  property invalid.   See Carlo
                                                                  ___ _____

          del Toro v.  Secretario de Justicia, 7 P.R. Off. Trans. 392, 398-
          ________     ______________________

          99 (1982).   In the face of  clear precedent, the district  court

                              
          ____________________

               3PR-DOJ's  lament that it was  lulled into a  false sense of
          security  by a  stay granted  earlier in  the proceedings  by the
          bankruptcy  court holds little water.   Given the  record in this
          case, no  reasonable lawyer would  have concluded  that the  stay
          endured  after  the district  court  withdrew  the reference  and
          assumed jurisdiction.

                                          5

          acted appropriately in noticing  the acquittals and striking down

          the seizures.

                    We need go no further.  Concluding, as  we do, that the

          instant appeal is entirely without merit, we summarily affirm.

          Affirmed.
          Affirmed.
          ________

                                          6