Estancias La v. Soltero-Harrington

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 96-1883 ESTANCIAS LA PONDEROSA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HILDA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 -2Per 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-