Court Opinion

ID: 2964073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:20:01.633877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:50.094382
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          April 22, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

          No. 95-1866

                           AGAPITA ROSA VELAZQUEZ, ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs - Appellees,

                                          v.

                         EDNA J. FIGUEROA-GOMEZ, ANGEL ROSA,
                   JAIME TORRENS AND THE MUNICIPALITY OF LUQUILLO,

                               Defendants - Appellants.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                   [Hon. Gilberto Gierbolini, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                            Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________

                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
                                        _____________

                                _____________________

               Claudio  Aliff-Ortiz,  with  whom  Eliezer  Aldarondo-Ortiz,
               ____________________               ________________________
          Isabel  L pez-Bras and Aldarondo &  Lopez Bras were  on brief for
          __________________     _______________________
          appellants.
               Juan B. Soto-Balbas, with whom Adrian Mercado and  Mercado &
               ___________________            ______________      _________
          Soto were on brief for appellees.
          ____

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                    Per  Curiam.    This  appeal  stems  from  a  political
                    Per  Curiam.
                    ___________

          discrimination  case brought, pursuant  to 42  U.S.C.    1983, by

          Plaintiffs-Appellees,  Agapita  Rosa  Vel zquez, et  al.,  former

          employees of  the Municipal Government of  Luquillo, Puerto Rico,

          against  Defendants-Appellants, Edna  J. Figueroa-G mez,  et al.,

          the  Municipal   Government  of  Luquillo  and   several  of  its

          officials.    A  jury verdict  found  that  Defendants-Appellants

          discriminated  against  thirty-eight of  the former  employees in

          violation  of  the  First  Amendment  based  on  their  political

          affiliation and awarded damages in favor of twenty-seven of them.

          In an  earlier  episode, we  affirmed  the finding  of  political

          discrimination and the damage award.  See Agapita Rosa Vel zquez,
                                                ___ _______________________

          et al.  v. Figueroa-G mez et  al., 996 F.2d  425 (1st  Cir. 1993)
          _____      ______________________

          (affirming  also  the  district   court's  denial  of  employees'

          reinstatement).  

                    Defendants-Appellants now appeal  the district  court's

          June 6, 1995, order denying their  motion for a reduction in  the

          attorney's   fees   awarded   to  Plaintiffs-Appellees   as   the

          "prevailing party" under 42 U.S.C.   1988 as well as  its June 9,

          1995, order of execution.   Upon careful review of the record, we

          affirm, on the basis of the district court's opinion, each matter

          raised on appeal.   The district court applied the  correct legal

          standards and did not abuse its discretion in denying the request

          that the attorney's  fees be  further reduced.   Because we  find

          this to be  a frivolous appeal,  see E.H. Ashley  & Co. v.  Wells
                                           ___ __________________     _____

          Fargo Alarm Servs., 907 F.2d 1274, 1280 (lst Cir. l990) ("[I]t is
          __________________

          enough that  the appellants and  their attorney should  have been

          aware that the appeal  had no chance of success.");  Natasha Inc.
                                                               ____________

                                         -2-

          v. Evita Marine Charters, Inc., 763 F.2d 468, 472 (1st Cir. 1985)
             ___________________________

          ("'An  appeal is  frivolous when  the result  is obvious,  or the

          arguments are "wholly without merit."'" (quoting NLRB v. Catalina
                                                           ____    ________

          Yachts,  679 F.2d 180, 182  (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted)),
          ______

          Defendants-Appellants are directed to show cause, within ten days

          from the issuance of this opinion, why we should not award double

          costs  and attorney's fees in the amount of $3,500 to Plaintiffs-

          Appellees pursuant to Rule  38 of the Federal Rules  of Appellate

          Procedure.  See  28 U.S.C.    1912 (1994)  (authorizing award  of
                      ___

          "just  damages  for [prevailing  party's]  delay,  and single  or

          double  costs"); Fed. R. App.  P. 38 (authorizing  award of "just

          damages  and single or double costs" if appeal is "frivolous" and

          "after a separately  filed motion  or notice from  the court  and

          reasonable opportunity  to respond");  see also Roadway  Express,
                                                 ________ _________________

          Inc. v.  Piper, 447 U.S.  752, 764-67 (1980);  Cronin v. Town  of
          ____     _____                                 ______    ________

          Amesbury, --- F.3d ---, ---, No.  95-1957, slip. op. at 7-10 (1st
          ________

          Cir. April 16, 1996).

                    The judgment below is affirmed.
                                          affirmed
                                          ________

                                         -3-