Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Reyes Garcia v. Rodriguez, 95-1455 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 95-1455 Visitors: 12
Filed: Apr. 25, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: MARIA DEL CARMEN REYES-GARCIA, ET AL.the speed bumps on its own authority.general duty of care owed under Puerto Rico law.review, or a summary of the argument.procedural rules.vital excerpts from the trial record.Gonzalez Caraballo, 929 F.2d 31, 34 (1st Cir.court of appeals may impose sanctions.
USCA1 Opinion









UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

_________________________


No. 95-1455

MARIA DEL CARMEN REYES-GARCIA, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs, Appellees,

v.

RODRIGUEZ & DEL VALLE, INC.,

Defendant, Appellant.

_________________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

_________________________

Before

Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges, ______________

and Gertner,* District Judge. ______________

_________________________

Virgilio Mendez Cuesta on brief for appellant. ______________________
Jose F. Quetglas Alvarez, Jose F. Quetglas Jordan, and Eric _________________________ _______________________ ____
M. Quetglas Jordan on brief for appellees. __________________

_________________________

April 25, 1996

_________________________

_____________

*Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.

















SELYA, Circuit Judge. Since appellate judges are not SELYA, Circuit Judge. ______________

haruspices, they are unable to decide cases by reading goats'

entrails. They instead must rely on lawyers and litigants to

submit briefs that present suitably developed argumentation with

appropriate citations to applicable precedents and to the record

below. A party who honors the minimum standards of acceptable

appellate advocacy only in the breach frustrates effective review

and thereby jeopardizes its appeal. The case at bar is a

paradigmatic example of a situation in which a party, by ignoring

the rules, invites serious repercussions.

I I

We sketch the underlying facts as best we can,

resolving infrequent conflicts in favor of the jury verdict. See ___

Cumpiano v. Banco Santander P.R., 902 F.2d 148, 151 (1st Cir. ________ _____________________

1990).

In 1987, defendant-appellant Rodriguez & Del Valle,

Inc. (R&D), a general contractor, executed an agreement with a

public agency, the Urban Renewal and Housing Corporation of

Puerto Rico (the Corporation), to renovate several residential

buildings in the Puerta de Tierra Housing Community, San Juan,

Puerto Rico. Without obtaining the permission required by

relevant regulations or any other semblance of permission, for

that matter R&D levelled speed bumps on a road that provided

entry into the Housing Community. Though flattening the

protuberances facilitated access to the work site by R&D's

vehicles and heavy machinery, the changed configuration also


2












effectively converted the roadway into a drag strip for high-

speed racing. Dismayed residents soon petitioned the

municipality to reconstruct the speed bumps. The powers-that-be

acquiesced and the municipality rebuilt the moguls (spacing them

at their original fifty-foot intervals, rather than at the 100-

foot intervals then mandated by applicable highway safety

regulations). The drag-racing ceased and traffic slowed to a

snail's pace.

R&D was not to be inconvenienced. It again levelled

the speed bumps on its own authority. Not surprisingly, drag-

racing resumed and the pace of traffic accelerated. When R&D

finished the renovations limned by its contract, it departed the

site without restoring the roadway to its original humpbacked

condition. Residents alerted the authorities, warning that lives

were at stake. After conducting an investigation, the

municipality concluded that someone had best rebuild the speed

bumps.

History teaches that at one point Rome burned while the

Emperor fiddled. On September 18, 1990 while various parties

(including R&D and the Corporation) were fencing over who had the

responsibility to restore the speed bumps a motorist named Jose

Flores, travelling at high speed on the roadway, lost control of

his automobile and struck plaintiff-appellee Maria del Carmen

Reyes-Garcia (Reyes) as she stood on the sidewalk. The impact

caused permanently debilitating injuries, including the severance

of a limb.


3












Invoking diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1332(a),

the plaintiff, by then a citizen of New Jersey, sued several

parties, including R&D, in the United States District Court for

the District of Puerto Rico.1 At trial plaintiff advanced a

golconda of tort theories against R&D, claiming inter alia that _____ ____

R&D had violated a highway safety regulation requiring

contractors to seek permission from the municipality prior to

removing speed bumps, and that R&D's conduct had transgressed the

general duty of care owed under Puerto Rico law. See P.R. Laws ___

Ann. tit. 31, 5141 (1991) (providing for liability when a

defendant "by an act or omission causes damage to another party

through fault or negligence").

After a six-day trial, a jury found for the plaintiff

and awarded her $700,000. It apportioned the damages 80% against

the Corporation and 20% against R&D. The district court denied a

variety of post-trial motions. R&D now appeals.

II II

The appellant's submissions to this court are in utter

disregard of the applicable procedural rules. It filed a nine-

page opening brief that did not contain a table of contents, a

list of legal authorities, a jurisdictional statement, a

statement of the case, a pr cis of the issues presented for

review, or a summary of the argument. The merits section of the

brief lacked developed argumentation, eschewed any meaningful

____________________

1Reyes' children also sued, but we need not discuss their
claims.

4












citations to pertinent legal authority, omitted particularized

references to the record evidence, and did not discuss the

applicable standard(s) of review. To cap matters, the appellant

failed to prepare a record appendix. In short, the brief

violated a whole series of requirements imposed by applicable

procedural rules. See, e.g., Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(1)-(6), ___ ____

28(e), & 30(a); 1st Cir. R. 28.2.

The plaintiff moved to dismiss the unleavened appeal.

R&D responded in fits and starts. It filed two addenda to its

opening brief (neither of which satisfactorily repaired the

manifold defects in its original filings). Without consulting

the plaintiff, see Fed. R. App. P. 30(b), R&D also prepared and ___

filed a thirteen-page record appendix. This submission lacked

vital excerpts from the trial record. It also lacked, among

other things, an index, relevant docket entries, the notice of

appeal, and the opinion of the district court denying the post-

trial motions. The principal document in the appendix was in the

Spanish language, without translation. These shortcomings

violated the rules several times over. See, e.g., Fed. R. App. ___ ____

P. 30(a), (d); 1st Cir. R. 28.2 & 30.7.

III III

Procedural rules are important for two overarching

reasons. One reason is that rules ensure fairness and

orderliness. They ensure fairness by providing litigants with a

level playing field. They ensure orderliness by providing courts

with a means for the efficient administration of crowded dockets.


5












In both these respects rules facilitate the tri-cornered

communications that link the opposing parties with each other and

with the court.

The second overarching reason why procedural rules are

important has a functional orientation: rules establish a

framework that helps courts to assemble the raw material that is

essential for forging enlightened decisions. In an appellate

venue, for example, rules provide the mechanism by which the

court, removed from the battlefield where the trial has been

fought, gains the information that it requires to set the issues

in context and pass upon them. When a party seeking appellate

review fails to comply with the rules in one or more substantial

respects, its failure thwarts this effort and deprives the

appellate court of the basic tools that the judges of the court

need to carry out this task. See Scarfo v. Cabletron Sys., Inc., ___ ______ ____________________

54 F.3d 931, 963 (1st Cir. 1995); Moore v. Murphy, 47 F.3d 8, 10 _____ ______

(1st Cir. 1995); Jardines Bacata, Ltd. v. Diaz-Marquez, 878 F.2d _____________________ ____________

1555, 1559 n.5 (1st Cir. 1989); Real v. Hogan, 828 F.2d 58, 60 ____ _____

(1st Cir. 1987).

In this instance the second reason is of paramount

importance. The deficiencies in the appellant's submissions are

pervasive. They frustrate any reasonable attempt to understand

its legal theories and to corroborate its factual averments.

Canvassing the appellant's arguments illustrates the point.

The appellant's principal claim is that it enjoyed a

privilege to remove the speed bumps because they were placed at


6












shorter intervals than prescribed by the governing municipal

regulation. This paralogism, however, is unsupported by any

citation either to legal authority or to record evidence.

Therefore, we must treat the argument as forfeited. See Ryan v. ___ ____

Royal Ins. Co., 916 F.2d 731, 734 (1st Cir. 1991) ("It is settled ______________

in this circuit that issues adverted to on appeal in a

perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some developed

argumentation, are deemed to have been abandoned."); United ______

States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir.) (same), cert. ______ _______ _____

denied, 494 U.S. 1082 (1990); see also Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(5) ______ ___ ____

(explaining that an appellate "argument must contain the

contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, and the

reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes,

and parts of the record relied on"). To make a bad situation

worse, the argument is bereft of any indicium that it was

seasonably advanced and properly preserved in the lower court.

The appellant's next asseveration is that the evidence

does not support the jury verdict. Here, too, the appellant

offers us no assurance that the necessary steps were taken below

to preserve the point, and the fragmented record that it has

produced does not afford any reliable way to tell. At any rate,

the appellant furnishes no citations to the record in support of

its rhetoric, but asks in effect that we take its rodomontade at

face value. There is no justification for doing so.

The appellant's third argument implicates the refusal

to order a remittitur. Federal law governs the question of


7












whether the trial court should order a remittitur in a diversity

case. See Blinzler v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, ___ ___ ________ ____________________

(1st Cir. 1996) [No. 95-2108, slip op. at 30]. Under federal

law, appellate review of a trial court's refusal to trim a

verdict is necessarily limited to whether the court abused its

discretion in leaving the award intact. See, e.g., Ruiz v. ___ ____ ____

Gonzalez Caraballo, 929 F.2d 31, 34 (1st Cir. 1991); Wagenmann v. __________________ _________

Adams, 829 F.2d 196, 215 (1st Cir. 1987). Though bareboned, the _____

record makes manifest the nature and extent of the plaintiff's

injuries. We need not go into graphic detail; even at a casual

glance, it beggars credulity to argue, as does R&D, that $700,000

in damages for a severed limb and other injuries is "grossly

excessive, inordinate, shocking to the conscience . . ., or so

high that it would be a denial of justice to permit it to stand."

Correa v. Hospital San Francisco, 69 F.3d 1184, 1197 (1st Cir. ______ ______________________

1995) (quoting Grunenthal v. Long Island R.R. Co., 393 U.S. 156, __________ ____________________

159 & n.4 (1968)).

The appellant's final argument is that it is entitled

to a new trial because the district court allegedly declined to

name Flores, the driver of the speeding car, on the verdict

form.2 But the meager record that we have before us does not

indicate that R&D preserved an objection on this ground at trial,

and preserving the point is a prerequisite to a successful

____________________

2The jury form did permit the jurors to find that the
driver's negligence constituted the sole proximate cause of the
plaintiff's injuries and to exonerate R&D in that event. The
jury found otherwise.

8












appeal. See, e.g., Putnam Resources v. Pateman, 958 F.2d 448, ___ ____ _________________ _______

456 (1st Cir. 1992) ("Silence after instructions, including

instructions on the form of the verdict to be returned by the

jury, typically constitutes a waiver of any objections."). In

all events, the appellant neglects to mention the singularly

important fact that Flores was not a party to the lawsuit; the

plaintiff had failed properly to serve him, and the appellant had

not seen fit to implead him. The appellant offers no plausible

theory why the district judge, under these circumstances, should

have inserted Flores' name on the verdict form and we can think

of none.

The parties to an appeal must recognize that rules are

not mere annoyances, to be swatted aside like so many flies, but,

rather, that rules lie near the epicenter of the judicial

process. This case shows why that is so; indeed, we have

canvassed the appellant's asseverational array mainly to

demonstrate that, even if we were inclined to do R&D's homework

and that is not our place R&D's substantial noncompliance with

the rules would hamstring any attempt to review the issues

intelligently. Of course, there must be some play in the joints.

No one is perfect, and occasional oversights fribbling

infringements of the rules that neither create unfairness to

one's adversary nor impair the court's ability to comprehend and

scrutinize a party's submissions ordinarily will not warrant

Draconian consequences. But major infractions or patterns of

repeated inattention warrant severe decrees. "In the long run, .


9












. . strict adherence to . . . procedural requirements . . . is

the best guarantee of evenhanded administration of the law."

Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 825 (1980). _____________ ______

We hold that a party's persistent noncompliance with

appellate rules, in and of itself, constitutes sufficient cause

to dismiss its appeal. See Kushner v. Winterthur Swiss Ins. Co., ___ _______ _________________________

620 F.2d 404, 407 (3d Cir. 1980) (dismissing appeal for failure

to comply with FRAP rules); see also Mortell v. Mortell Co., 887 ___ ____ _______ ___________

F.2d 1322, 1327 (7th Cir. 1989) (observing that failure to comply

with the rules can be "fatal" to an appeal); Katz v. King, 627 ____ ____

F.2d 568, 571 n.3 (1st Cir. 1980) (warning that failure to

observe the rules may "result in the loss of valuable rights" and

listing dismissal as an appropriate response to such violations);

see also Fed. R. App. P. 3(a) (stipulating that the "[f]ailure of ___ ____

an appellant to take any step other than the timely filing of a

notice of appeal" may be grounds "for such action as the court of

appeals deems appropriate, which may include dismissal of the

appeal"). We need not tarry in applying this holding to the case

at hand. Appeals must be prosecuted in substantial compliance

with applicable procedural rules and this appeal fails that

test.3 The violations here are nothing short of egregious.

Dismissal is plainly warranted. Accordingly, the appeal is

dismissed with prejudice.

IV IV

____________________

3In all candor, moreover, the appeal from what we can tell
appears to be totally devoid of merit.

10












We have one more base to touch. If the shoe fits, the

court of appeals may impose sanctions. See Fed. R. App. P. 38 ___

(authorizing awards of "just damages" and "double costs" for

frivolous appeals); 28 U.S.C. 1912 (similar); 28 U.S.C. 1927

("Any attorney . . . who so multiplies the proceedings in any

case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to

satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys'

fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct."). The

plaintiff urges that this is an appropriate instance for the

imposition of such sanctions.

We have said that "[a]ppellate sanctions are aimed at

discourag[ing] litigants from wasting time and resources of both

their opponents and the judicial system with arguments that are

without merit." Transnational Corp. v. Rodio & Ursilio, Ltd., ____________________ ______________________

920 F.2d 1066, 1072 (1st Cir. 1990); see also Toscano v. ___ ____ _______

Chandris, S.A., 934 F.2d 383, 387 (1st Cir. 1991) (explaining ______________

that sanctions are a proper response to a frivolous appeal). By

like token, sanctions are an appropriate means of discouraging

parties and their counsel from wasting the time of courts and

other litigants by prosecuting appeals in ways that deviate

substantially from the rules. See, e.g., Calderon-Ontiveros v. ___ ____ __________________

INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1053 (5th Cir. 1986) (imposing sanctions for ___

failure to comply with FRAP rules); Hamblen v. County of Los _______ ______________

Angeles, 803 F.2d 462, 464-65 (9th Cir. 1986) (similar). Here, _______

the imposition of sanctions may well serve either or both of

these purposes.


11












In order to ensure that we hear both sides of the

story, we direct the plaintiff's counsel to prepare, file, and

serve within two weeks of the date hereof an application for fees

and costs on appeal in the usual format, see, e.g., Weinberger v. ___ ____ __________

Great N. Nekoosa Corp., 925 F.2d 518, 527 (1st Cir. 1991) _________________________

(discussing contents of fee applications), together with a

memorandum of law, not to exceed ten pages in length, in support

of the plaintiff's request for sanctions. Within two weeks

thereafter, the appellant shall file a memorandum (subject to the

same page limitation) attempting to show cause (if any there be)

why sanctions should not be assessed against R&D and its counsel,

jointly and severally. R&D may, if it so elects, file at the

same time an affidavit of its counsel commenting upon the

reasonableness of the fees requested by the applicant.



The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. We retain The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. We retain _________________________________________ __________

appellate jurisdiction for the purpose of further considering the appellate jurisdiction for the purpose of further considering the _________________________________________________________________

plaintiff's request for sanctions. The parties shall make the plaintiff's request for sanctions. The parties shall make the __________________________________ ___________________________

filings described herein within the assigned time parameters. We filings described herein within the assigned time parameters. We ____________________________________________________________ __

shall withhold mandate until the question of sanctions has been shall withhold mandate until the question of sanctions has been _________________________________________________________________

resolved. resolved. ________



So Ordered. So Ordered. __________








12






Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer