Serrano-Figueroa v. Banponce Corporation

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT No. 97-2359 PEDRO M. SERRANO-FIGUEROA, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. BANPONCE CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. No. 97-2360 PEDRO M. SERRANO-FIGUEROA, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. BANPONCE CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. EMILIO E. PINERO FERRER, Defendant, Appellant. APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Daniel R. Dominguez, U.S. District Judge] Before Boudin, Circuit Judge, Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge, and Lynch, Circuit Judge. Edelmiro Salas Garcia on brief for appellants Pedro M. SerranoFigueroa, et al. Pedro J. Manzano-Yates, Beatriz M. Rodriguez-Burgos, and Fiddler, Gonzalez & Rodriguez on brief for appellees Banponce Corporation, Banco Popular De Puerto Rico, and Marta Galera. Juan R. Marchand Quintero, Ana L. Toledo and Rivera Cestero & Marchand Quintero on brief for appellee-cross-appellant Emilio E. Pinero Ferrer. April 7, 1998 Per Curiam. As to appeal no. 97-2359, upon careful review of the briefs and record, we conclude that plaintiffs' "jurisdictional" argument regarding 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) is completely frivolous. We reach this conclusion essentially for the reasons stated by the district court in its order dated September 25, 1997. Plaintiffs have not developed any other argument, so we will not consider any other aspect of the judgment. See United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990). In light of our conclusion that plaintiffs and their attorney have prosecuted a frivolous appeal, we grantdefendants' motions for sanctions under Fed. R. App. P. 38. See also 28 U.S.C. 1927. We therefore direct plaintiffs, jointly and severally, to pay double costs, and we direct plaintiffs' attorney personally to pay defendants' reasonable attorney's fees for appeal no. 97-2359. See United States v. Nesglo, Inc., 744 F.2d 887, 892 (1st Cir. 1984). Defendants are directed to file with this court and serve upon plaintiffs, within 15 days after the date of this opinion, their bills of costs and attorney's fees incurred for appeal no. 97-2359. Within 10 days after such service upon them, plaintiffs may file and serve any objections to those bills. Thereafter we will issue an order taxing the double costs and the reasonable attorney's fees. As to appeal no. 97-2360, we conclude that the denial of defendant's motion for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c) was within the district court's considerable discretion. On the record before us, we must defer to the district court's finding that plaintiffs' motions were based on mistake of law and not wrongful purposes. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. The defendants' motions for Rule 38 sanctions are granted as provided in this opinion.