Court Opinion

ID: 2964370
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:24:41.139148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:53.884841
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________
        No. 96-1197

                                CME, ASSOCIATES, INC.,

                           AS IT IS THE GENERAL PARTNER OF

                                   CME GROUP, LTD.,

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

                     JOSEPH D. FORD AND SHIRLEY ANN FORD, ET AL.,

                               Defendants, Appellants.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Nancy J. Gertner, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                  Cyr, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________
                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                             and Ponsor,* District Judge.
                                          ______________

                                 ____________________

            Alan  R. Hoffman with  whom John  R. Cavanaugh  and Lynch, Brewer,
            ________________            __________________      ______________
        Hoffman & Sands, LLP were on brief for appellants.
        ____________________
            Judith Gail  Dein with whom James  J. Arguin,  Warner & Stackpole,
            _________________           ________________   ___________________
        LLP and Christopher Nolland were on brief for appellee.
        ___     ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                   October 17, 1996
                                 ____________________

        ____________________

        * Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.

                 Per  Curiam.  This is an  action on a promissory note by
                 ___________

            CME Associates against the Fords, two of whom were co-signers

            of  the note.   The  district court  granted partial  summary

            judgment  in favor  of  CME, establishing  the senior  Fords'

            liability on the note.  A number of other issues remain to be

            resolved, but the court  entered a separate judgment pursuant

            to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

                 The  Fords' primary defense  to the note  was an alleged

            oral  modification  of the  terms of  the  note by  the prior

            holder, the FDIC.   The district court rejected  this defense

            on the ground that the note's current owner, CME, is a holder

            in  due course  protected by  Massachusetts law  against such

            modifications absent notice.   See Mass.  Gen. Laws ch.  106,
                                           ___

              3-305(2)(e).   We are satisfied from a review of the record

            that  CME did not have notice and that there was insufficient

            evidence to the contrary to warrant a trial on this question.

                 The  Fords also  argued that  CME's foreclosure  sale of

            real  property   securing  the   note  was  conducted   in  a

            commercially  unreasonable fashion.   E.g.,  RTC v.  Carr, 13
                                                  ____   ___     ____

            F.3d 425 (1st Cir. 1993).  In effect, the Fords said that the

            sale  was  conducted  in  a  negligent  manner.    But  their

            affidavit to this effect did not even purport to show that it

            was made by someone  with knowledge of the facts  as required

            by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).     The  Fords  say that  more time

            should have been allowed for discovery concerning the conduct

                                         -2-
                                         -2-

            of the sale, but this is a matter largely  within the purview

            of  the district court,  Ayala-Gerena v. Bristol Myers-Squibb
                                     ____________    ____________________

            Co., 95 F.3d 86, 91 (1st Cir. 1996), and we perceive no abuse
            ___

            of discretion.   Moreover, the record  does not reflect  that

            the  Fords made  anything  approaching  an  adequate  showing

            before  the  district  court  to justify  invocation  of  the

            "escape hatch" under  Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f).  Paterson-Leitch
                                                          _______________

            Company,  Inc. v. Massachusetts  Municipal Wholesale Electric
            ______________    ___________________________________________

            Company, 840 F.2d 985, 988-989 (1st Cir. 1988).
            _______

                 No other issues argued by the Fords in this case require

            further comment.   It would be helpful in the  future for the

            district  court to  be  more explicit  in  setting forth  its

            express determination that there is no just reason for  delay

            as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

                 Affirmed.
                 ________

                                         -3-
                                         -3-