Court Opinion

ID: 2964831
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:31:45.77069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:01.613681
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1853 

                                  JAMES MACFARLANE,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                        EDGAR D. MCKEAN, III, ESQUIRE, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                   [Hon. Shane Devine, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                       __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Selya, Boudin and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            James MacFarlane on brief pro se.
            ________________
            Jeffrey  H.  Karlin,  Jennifer  L.  Murphy,  and  Wadleigh, Starr,
            ___________________   ____________________        ________________
        Peters, Dunn & Chiesa on brief for appellee.
        _____________________

                                 ____________________

                                   August 19, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.   James  MacFarlane appeals  from  the
                      ___________

            district court's grant  of the motion by  appellees, Edgar D.

            McKean, III, Esq.,  Julia M.  Nye, Esq. and  the law firm  of

            McKean, Mattson and Latici, P.A., for judgment as a matter of

            law under Fed.  R. Civ. P. 50(a).  We agree with the district

            court  that appellant failed to introduce evidence from which

            a   reasonable  jury  could  find  causation  in  this  legal

            malpractice case.  We also find no abuse of discretion in the

            district  court's exclusion  of  one  of  appellant's  expert

            witnesses.  Finally, we decline appellant's request to vacate

            a sanction imposed jointly  on him and his attorney  pursuant

            to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

                 1. Rule 50(a) Dismissal 
                    ____________________

                 We  have   carefully  reviewed  the   evidence  and  the

            inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom in the light most

            favorable to MacFarlane.  See Gibson v. City  of Cranston, 37
                                      ___ ______    _________________

            F.3d 731,  735 (1st  Cir. 1994).   As the  governing standard

            requires,  we   have  not   considered  the   credibility  of

            witnesses, resolved conflicts in testimony,  or evaluated the

            weight of evidence.  See id.  Applying plenary  review to the
                                 ___ ___

            district court's judgment,  we conclude that the  evidence of

            causation  "is such that reasonable minds could not differ as

            to  the outcome." Rolon-Alvorado v. Municipality of San Juan,
                              ______________    ________________________

            1 F.3d 74, 77 (1st Cir. 1993).

                 No reasonable  jury could have  found that, but  for the

            breaches   of  duty   identified   by  MacFarlane's   expert,

            MacFarlane  should have obtained  a more favorable  result in

            his divorce trial.  Specifically, in the  absence of evidence

                                         -3-

            regarding  the contents  of the  mortgage application,  Beryl

            Rich's financial circumstances  or her own representation  of

            those circumstances,  the jury  would have  been required  to

            speculate as to the probable  result if the alleged errors at

            the trial and appellate level had not occurred.  "Speculation

            about  what  might have  occurred  fails  to  create  a  jury

            question  as to the  alleged damage sustained  by plaintiff."

            Tanner  v. Caplin  & Drysdale,  24  F.3d 874,  878 (6th  Cir.
            ______     __________________

            1994).

                 B. Exclusion of Expert Witness
                    ___________________________

                 "[T]he   court  has   broad   discretionary  powers   in

            determining whether or  not the proposed expert  is qualified

            by  'knowledge, skill,  experience,  training or  education.'

            Fed.  R. Evil.  702."  Bogosian  v.  Mercedes-Benz  of  North
                                   ________      ________________________

            America,  Inc., 104 F.3d 472, 476 (1st Cir. 1997).  The trial
            ______________

            court  did not  abuse that  discretion  in excluding  Roberta

            Harding, Esq., as an expert witness.

                 C. Award of Attorneys' Fees
                    ________________________

                 In accordance with this court's order of March 18, 1997,

            that part  of MacFarlane's  appeal that  seeks to  vacate the

            sanction award is dismissed.
                              _________

                 The   judgment  of     the   district  court,   granting

            defendants' motion  for  judgment  as  a matter  of  law,  is

            affirmed.
            ________

                                         -4-