Frusher v. Baskin-Robbins Co ( 1994 )

December 21, 1994
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 94-1041
CECELIA PALMISANO FRUSHER,
Appellant,
v.
BASKIN-ROBBINS ICE CREAM COMPANY, ET AL.,
Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Cyr, Circuit Judge,
Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge, and
Stahl, Circuit Judge.
Cecelia P. Frusher on brief pro se.
Mark W. Freel and Edwards & Angell on brief for appellee.
Per Curiam. Cecelia P. Frusher appeals a judgment
of the district court affirming a decision by the bankruptcy
court in an adversary proceeding initiated by appellant
against her former franchisor. The crux of appellant's
argument is that the bankruptcy court erred in resolving
against her the fact-dominated liability issues underlying
her claims of misrepresentation, fraud and deceit. Having
carefully reviewed the briefs and relevant portions of the
record in this six-day bench trial, we find no clear error in
the bankruptcy court's factual findings and no suggestion of
legal error. See In re G.S.F. Corp., 938 F.2d 1467 (1st Cir.
1991).1 Accordingly, we need not reach the assignments of
error relating to damages. We see no support for appellant's
further contention that the decisions below were influenced
by gender bias.
Affirmed.
1. The parties' briefs join issue on the applicable standard
of review in this court following the district court's review
under Bankruptcy Rule 8013. We adhere to the rule that this
court "independently reviews the bankruptcy court's decision,
applying the clearly erroneous standard to findings of fact
and de novo review to conclusions of law." GSF Corp., 938
F.2d at 1474. Any errors committed by the district court in
findings of fact during its review are rendered harmless by
our independent review, so we do not address those arguments
in appellant's brief.