Estancias La v. Soltero-Harrington
Case Date: 04/24/1997
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 96-1883
|
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit ____________________ No. 96-1883 ESTANCIAS LA PONDEROSA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff - Appellant,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- |