Unanue v. Unanue Casal
Case Date: 05/12/1994
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 93-2186
|
May 12, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT _________________________ No. 93-2186 IN RE ULPIANO UNANUE-CASAL, a/k/a CHARLES UNANUE, Debtor. _________________________ JOSEPH A. UNANUE, ET AL., Petitioners, Appellees, v. ULPIANO UNANUE-CASAL a/k/a CHARLES UNANUE, Respondent, Appellant. _________________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Gilberto Gierbolini, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ _________________________ Before Selya, Circuit Judge, _____________ Coffin and Bownes, Senior Circuit Judges. _____________________ _________________________ Jan Alan Brody, with whom Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, _______________ _________________________________ Cecchi, Stewart & Olstein, William Vidal-Carvajal, and Hernandez _________________________ ______________________ _________ & Vidal were on brief, for appellant. _______ Arturo J. Garcia-Sola, with whom Jose R. Gonzalez-Irizarry _____________________ __________________________ and McConnell Valdes were on brief, for appellees Joseph A. ________________ Unanue, Frank Unanue, and Goya Foods, Inc. Michael R. Griffinger, with whom Crummy, Del Deo, Dolan, ______________________ ________________________ Griffinger & Vecchione and Guillermo A. Nigaglioni were on brief, ______________________ _______________________ for remaining appellees. Per Curiam. This is the latest chapter in a dispute Per Curiam. ___________ that has been litigated with fierce tenacity by the debtor, Ulpiano Unanue-Casal, a/k/a Charles Unanue. See, e.g., In re ___ ____ ______ Unanue-Casal, 998 F.2d 28 (1st Cir. 1993); Unanue-Casal v. ____________ ____________ Unanue-Casal, 898 F.2d 839 (1st Cir. 1990). Although tenacity is ____________ to be admired, it is sometimes misplaced. So it is here. We have carefully reviewed the voluminous record and the parties' briefs, and have duly considered the matters raised at oral argument. In the end, we are persuaded that the district court did not err in reversing the bankruptcy court's refusal to lift the automatic stay, 11 U.S.C. 362. The district court's well-conceived opinion, see In re Unanue Casal, Civ. No. 92-1796 ___ __________________ GG (D.P.R. Aug. 3, 1993) (unpublished), adequately elucidates the reasoning that is controlling on the central issue presented by this appeal, and no useful purpose would be served by rehearsing that reasoning. Similarly, we see no basis for a remand to the bankruptcy court for further exploration of this issue. And, finally, appellant's other arguments are mere makeweights. We need go no further. Because this appeal presents no substantial question of law or fact, we summarily affirm the judgment below.1 Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ___ ____________________ 1We take no view of appellees' claim that the appeal is moot, as the appeal is impuissant in any event. 2 |