Emma v. Murphy
Case Date: 05/06/1994
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 93-1899
|
May 6, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ___________________ No. 93-1899 ARNOLD EMMA, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. PAUL B. MURPHY, ETC., ET AL., Defendants, Appellants. __________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ___________________ Before Breyer, Chief Judge, ___________ Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________ ___________________ Nancy Ankers White, Special Assistant Attorney General, and __________________ Peter J. Morin on brief for appellants. ______________ __________________ __________________ Per Curiam. Defendants appeal from a default ___________ judgment entered after they failed to file an answer or other appearance within the time specified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They argue that the district court erred in denying their motion to remove the default, and in the subsequent assessment of damages. In the absence of legal error, we review the denial of a motion to remove a default solely for an abuse of discretion. General Contracting & Trading Co., LLC v. __________________________________________ Interpole, Inc., 899 F.2d 109, 110 (1st Cir. 1990). ________________ Defendants offer no persuasive reason to suggest that the district court abused its discretion and we perceive no abuse in the record. As to the assessment of damages, defendants failed to timely file in the district court any opposition to plaintiffs' two consecutive motions for assessment, despite notice of each motion and an intervening order by the court placing the case on the running trial list "should there be a factual dispute as to the damages." Issues not properly presented to the trial court will not be addressed for the first time on appeal. United States v. Palmer, 956 F.2d 3, 6 _____________ ______ (1st Cir. 1992). Affirmed. ________ -2- |