Pages, et al., v. Feingold
Case Date: 05/08/1997
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 96-1879
|
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 96-1879 HECTOR PAGES, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. MANUEL FEINGOLD, Defendant, Appellant. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Harry Hertzberg on brief for appellant. _______________ Jesus E. Cuza, Ina M. Berlingeri-Vincenty and Goldman Antonetti & _____________ __________________________ ___________________ Cordova on brief for appellees. _______ ____________________ May 6, 1997 ____________________ Per Curiam. Upon careful review of the briefs and ___________ record, we conclude that this appeal clearly presents no substantial question and that summary disposition is appropriate. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. ___ We further conclude that, for the reasons stated in the May 8, 1996, order, the district court acted within its discretion in entering default against defendant. Defendant's repeated failures to comply with discovery and other orders justified that sanction, of which defendant had been warned. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). _____ Further, for the reasons stated in the opinion and order dated June 7, 1996, Pages v. Feingold, 928 F. Supp. 148 _____ ________ (D.P.R. 1996), the district court properly entered judgment for plaintiff. The district court's findings that the letters written by defendant were false and maliciously published, that plaintiff suffered damages thereby, and that plaintiff was a private figure, were amply supported by the evidence presented at trial and consistent with applicable Puerto Rico law as cited by the district court. And, we find no factual or legal basis for defendant's assertion of a qualified immunity defense, particularly in light of the default. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to recuse. The various remarks about which defendant complains do not create a reasonable -2- doubt concerning the district judge's impartiality. See ___ United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33, 37 (1st Cir. 1991). _____________ _____ Plaintiff's motion to dismiss this appeal and for sanctions is granted in part. In light of the numerous ________________ violations of the appellate rules regarding the form and content of the brief and appendix, we are persuaded that an award of sanctions is appropriate. See Fed. R. App. P. 28 & ___ 30; Reyes-Garcia v. Rodriguez & Del Valle, Inc., 82 F.3d 11, ____________ ___________________________ 14-16 (1st Cir. 1996). Therefore, we award double costs to ___________________ plaintiff, to be taxed jointly and severally against defendant and his attorney. See Fed. R. App. P. 38. ___ Affirmed. ________ -3- |