Court Opinion

ID: 2964891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:32:39.33845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:03.191389
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1940

                    HIDEKO T. WORCESTER AND CHARLES E. WORCESTER,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                       FILENE'S BASEMENT, CORPORATION, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                  [Hon. George A. O'Toole, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
                                                ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Selya, Boudin and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Hideko T. Worcester and Charles E. Worcester on brief pro se.
            ___________________     ____________________
            Joseph  P.  Musacchio  and Melick  &  Porter,  LLP  on  brief  for
            _____________________      _______________________
        appellees  Filene's Basement Corporation,  Howard Nyman, Ray McCarthy,
        Colleen Fitzpatrick, Maureen Supple, and Retail Enterprises, Inc.
            Merita A. Hopkins and Robert J. Boyle, Jr. on  brief for appellees
            _________________     ____________________
        Francis M. Roache, Ralph Caulfield, and Leo Coogan.

                                 ____________________

                                  September 5, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per   Curiam.     Appellants  Hideko   and  Charles
                      ____________

            Worcester appeal from the amount  of damages the jury awarded

            and from  two orders of  the district court entered  prior to

            trial.  For  the following reasons, we  find that appellants'

            contentions lack merit.

                      1.    Damages.   First,  "[w]e  generally  will not
                            _______

            review  a  party's  contention  that  the  damages  award  is

            excessive or insufficient where the party has failed to allow

            the  district court  to rule  on  the matter."   O'Connor  v.
                                                             ________

            Huard, 117 F.3d  12, 18 (1st Cir. 1997).  The record reflects
            _____

            that  the district  court  was never  provided  with such  an

            opportunity.   In  any event,  the  only evidence  appellants

            present in support of their  claim that the damages award was

            too  low is new  evidence.   Of course,  this court  does not

            consider  arguments or evidence not presented to the district

            court.   Matthews v.  Marsh, 755 F.2d  182, 183-84  (1st Cir.
                     ________     _____

            1985).

                      2.   Joseph  Doe's Dismissal.  We  think that  what
                           _______________________

            appellants really  are  complaining  about  is  the  district

            court's  denial  of  their   motion  to  substitute   "Robert

            Constine" for  "Joseph Doe,"  which we treat  as a  motion to

            amend  the complaint  to  add an  additional  defendant.   We

            review the denial  of such a motion for  abuse of discretion.

            Resolution Trust  Corp. v. Gold,  30 F.3d 251, 253  (1st Cir.
            _______________________    ____

            1994).  "[U]nseemly delay, in combination with other factors,

                                         -2-

            may warrant denial  of a suggested amendment."   Quaker State
                                                             ____________

            Oil Refining  Corp. v. Garrity  Oil Co., 884 F.2d  1510, 1517
            ___________________    ________________

            (1st Cir. 1989).

                      Here,  appellants  waited  to  move  to  amend  the

            complaint  for about one year after  the other police officer

            involved in Hideko's  arrest had been identified.   In such a

            situation, "the movant[s]  ha[ve] the burden of  showing some
                            ______

            valid reason for  [their] neglect and delay."   Grant v. News
                                                            _____    ____

            Group Boston, Inc., 55 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 1995).  Appellants
            __________________

            do  not present  such reasons.    First, to  the extent  that

            appellants allege  that the  actions of  their prior  counsel

            contributed to the  delay in moving  to amend the  complaint,

            appellants  are  bound by  the  acts  or omissions  of  their

            attorneys.  United States v.  One Lot of $25,721 in Currency,
                        _____________     ______________________________

            938 F.2d 1417, 1422 (1st Cir. 1991).

                      Second,  the  record  reveals  that  after  counsel

            withdrew,  it was appellants'  own inaction which  caused the

            further  delay.    Such inaction  cannot  constitute  a valid

            reason.   See  Hayes v.  New  England Millwork  Distributors,
                      ___  _____     ____________________________________

            Inc.,  602 F.2d  15, 20 (1st  Cir. 1979).   In any  event, we
            ____

            think  that both  the court and  the police  defendants would

            have been  prejudiced by the  addition of a new  defendant so

            late  in the  case because  discovery  would have  had to  be

            reopened.  See Grant, 55 F.3d at 5-6.
                       ___ _____

                                         -3-

                      3.    Motion  of  Francis  M.  Roache  for  Summary
                            _____________________________________________

            Judgment.  The district court did not abuse its discretion in
            ________

            denying appellants' request for more time in which to conduct

            the discovery  necessary to  oppose this  motion because  the

            record  reveals that  prior  to the  motion,  ample time  had

            existed  for such  discovery.   See Price  v.  General Motors
                                            ___ _____      ______________

            Corp., 931 F.2d 162, 164  (1st Cir. 1991) (a party  must show
            _____

            "good  cause" for  the failure  to  have conducted  discovery

            earlier).   Further, "[a]  court may  grant summary  judgment

            despite  an opposing party's claim that discovery would yield

            additional facts  where the  opposing party  has not  alleged

            specific   facts  that   could  be  developed   through  such

            discovery."  Taylor v. Gallagher, 737 F,2d 134, 137 (1st Cir.
                         ______    _________

            1984).  Appellants alleged no such facts here.

                      We  have  reviewed  the  remainder  of  appellants'

            arguments and can  find no reason to disturb  the judgment of

            the district court.  Affirmed.
                                 ________

                                         -4-