Estancias La v. Soltero-Harrington
Estancias La v. Soltero-Harrington
Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
No. 96-1883
ESTANCIAS LA PONDEROSA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HILDA SOLTERO-HARRINGTON, ET AL., Defendants - Appellees.
Nos. 96-1992 96-1993 96-1994
ESTANCIAS LA PONDEROSA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HILDA SOLTERO-HARRINGTON, ET AL., Defendants - Appellants.
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Daniel R. Dom nguez, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Selya, Circuit Judge,
and Saris,* District Judge.
Luis A. Mel ndez-Albizu, with whom Luis S nchez-Betances and
* Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.
S nchez-Betances & Sifre were on brief for Estancias La Ponderosa
Development Corporation. Jos Luis Novas-Due o for Hilda Soltero-Harrington and
Rafael Durand-Manzanal.
April 24, 1997
-2-
Per Curiam. Upon due consideration of the appellate Per Curiam.
briefs, arguments of counsel and record in this case, we affirm
the decision of the district court for the reasons provided in
its thorough and well reasoned opinion. See Estancias La
Ponderosa Develop. Corp. v. Harrington,
195 B.R. 210(D. P.R.
1996). In view of the fact that the result on the merits is in
favor of the appellee, we need not decide the jurisdictional
issues raised by appellee on its cross-appeals. See Hachikian v.
FDIC,
96 F.3d 502, 506 n.4 (1st Cir. 1996) ("'It is a familiar
tenet that when an appeal presents a jurisdictional quandary, yet
the merits of the underlying issue, if reached, will in any event
be resolved in favor of the party challenging the court's
jurisdiction, then the court may forsake the jurisdictional
riddle and simply dispose of the appeal on the merits.'" (quoting
United States v. Stoller,
78 F.3d 710, 715(1st Cir. 1996)); see
also Institut Pasteur v. Cambridge Biotech Corp.,
104 F.3d 489, 492(1st Cir. 1997) (applying rule in bankruptcy case).
Affirmed, with costs on appeal awarded to defendants. Affirmed, with costs on appeal awarded to defendants.
-3-
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished