Court Opinion

ID: 2964910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:32:52.296502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:32:57.297281
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1117

                      JAMES E. COFIELD, JR. AND JUAN M. COFIELD,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                        FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                      [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Edwin  A. McCabe,  Philip Y. Brown  and McCabe Brown  on brief for
            ________________   _______________      ____________
        appellants.
            James  C.  Heigham  and  Choate,  Hall  &  Stewart  on  brief  for
            __________________       _________________________
        appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   August 25, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.  We have carefully reviewed the record
                      ___________

            and  read the  briefs  on  appeal.   We  affirm the  district

            court's judgment dismissing the complaint of  appellant James

            E. Cofield for essentially the  reasons stated in the court's

            Memorandum and Order, dated October 31, 1996.  See Local Rule
                                                           ___

            27.1.  We add only two comments.

                      1.   Statute of  Limitations.   We assume,  without
                           _______________________

            deciding, that  appellant argued  below that  Fannie Mae  had

            perpetrated  a fraud on  the bankruptcy court.   Nonetheless,

            the claim cannot  succeed.  Simply, appellant may  not pursue

            the fraud claim  now, either via motion or  in an independent

            action, because  he could have litigated it  in the adversary

            proceeding.  That is, from  the undisputed facts, it is plain

            that appellant knew of Fannie Mae's alleged fraud  before the

            adversary proceeding was  dismissed.  As we pointed  out in a

            recent case, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) does not permit a party to

            relitigate, in  an independent  action or  by motion,  issues

            that  the party  had a  fair opportunity  to litigate  in the

            former  action.   See Geo.  P. Reintjes  Co. v.  Riley Stoker
                              ___ ______________________     ____________

            Corp., 71 F.3d  44, 49 (1st  Cir. 1995) (citing  7 J.  Moore,
            _____

            Moore's Federal  Practice    60.37  (1995)).   At the  least,
            _________________________

            appellant  could have filed  a motion for  reconsideration of

            the order of dismissal.

                      2.  Malicious Prosecution.  Appellant's reliance on
                          _____________________

            comment  j to    674  of  the Restatement  (Second) of  Torts
                                          _______________________________

                                         -2-

            (1977) does  not  help him.    That comment  emphasizes  that

            "[w]hether a withdrawal or an abandonment constitutes a final

            termination of the  case in favor of the  person against whom

            the  proceedings  are   brought  .  .  .   depends  upon  the
                                                       __________________

            circumstances  under which  the  proceedings are  withdrawn."
            ___________________________________________________________

            Id. cmt. j  (emphasis added).  The  circumstances surrounding
            ___

            Fannie   Mae's  decision  to  let  the  bankruptcy  order  of

            dismissal  stand,  even  assuming such  decision  amounts  to

            abandonment, establish that, as the district court found, the

            adversary proceeding,  in  relation to  Fannie  Mae's  claims

            against appellant, did not terminate in either party's favor.

                      We therefore summarily  affirm the judgment  of the
                                              ______

            district  court and, as  per counsel's representation  in the

            reply brief, withdraw the appeal of Juan M. Cofield.

                                         -3-