Velazquez v. Figueroa Gomez ( 1996 )

USCA1 Opinion

          April 22, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]





                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________



          No. 95-1866



                           AGAPITA ROSA VELAZQUEZ, ET AL.,



                               Plaintiffs - Appellees,



                                          v.



                         EDNA J. FIGUEROA-GOMEZ, ANGEL ROSA,

                   JAIME TORRENS AND THE MUNICIPALITY OF LUQUILLO,



                               Defendants - Appellants.



                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



                   [Hon. Gilberto Gierbolini, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________



                            Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________



                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
_____________



                                _____________________



               Claudio  Aliff-Ortiz,  with  whom  Eliezer  Aldarondo-Ortiz,
____________________               ________________________

          Isabel  L pez-Bras and Aldarondo &  Lopez Bras were  on brief for
__________________     _______________________

          appellants.

               Juan B. Soto-Balbas, with whom Adrian Mercado and  Mercado &
___________________            ______________      _________

          Soto were on brief for appellees.
____







                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________





























                    Per  Curiam.    This  appeal  stems  from  a  political
Per  Curiam.
___________



          discrimination  case brought, pursuant  to 42  U.S.C.    1983, by



          Plaintiffs-Appellees,  Agapita  Rosa  Vel zquez, et  al.,  former



          employees of  the Municipal Government of  Luquillo, Puerto Rico,



          against  Defendants-Appellants, Edna  J. Figueroa-G mez,  et al.,



          the  Municipal   Government  of  Luquillo  and   several  of  its



          officials.    A  jury verdict  found  that  Defendants-Appellants



          discriminated  against  thirty-eight of  the former  employees in



          violation  of  the  First  Amendment  based  on  their  political



          affiliation and awarded damages in favor of twenty-seven of them.



          In an  earlier  episode, we  affirmed  the finding  of  political



          discrimination and the damage award.  See Agapita Rosa Vel zquez,
___ _______________________



          et al.  v. Figueroa-G mez et  al., 996 F.2d  425 (1st  Cir. 1993)
_____      ______________________



          (affirming  also  the  district   court's  denial  of  employees'



          reinstatement).



                    Defendants-Appellants now appeal  the district  court's



          June 6, 1995, order denying their  motion for a reduction in  the



          attorney's   fees   awarded   to  Plaintiffs-Appellees   as   the



          "prevailing party" under 42 U.S.C.   1988 as well as  its June 9,



          1995, order of execution.   Upon careful review of the record, we



          affirm, on the basis of the district court's opinion, each matter



          raised on appeal.   The district court applied the  correct legal



          standards and did not abuse its discretion in denying the request



          that the attorney's  fees be  further reduced.   Because we  find



          this to be  a frivolous appeal,  see E.H. Ashley  & Co. v.  Wells
___ __________________     _____



          Fargo Alarm Servs., 907 F.2d 1274, 1280 (lst Cir. l990) ("[I]t is
__________________



          enough that  the appellants and  their attorney should  have been



          aware that the appeal  had no chance of success.");  Natasha Inc.
____________



                                         -2-

























          v. Evita Marine Charters, Inc., 763 F.2d 468, 472 (1st Cir. 1985)
___________________________



          ("'An  appeal is  frivolous when  the result  is obvious,  or the



          arguments are "wholly without merit."'" (quoting NLRB v. Catalina
____    ________



          Yachts,  679 F.2d 180, 182  (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted)),
______



          Defendants-Appellants are directed to show cause, within ten days



          from the issuance of this opinion, why we should not award double



          costs  and attorney's fees in the amount of $3,500 to Plaintiffs-



          Appellees pursuant to Rule  38 of the Federal Rules  of Appellate



          Procedure.  See  28 U.S.C.    1912 (1994)  (authorizing award  of
___



          "just  damages  for [prevailing  party's]  delay,  and single  or



          double  costs"); Fed. R. App.  P. 38 (authorizing  award of "just



          damages  and single or double costs" if appeal is "frivolous" and



          "after a separately  filed motion  or notice from  the court  and



          reasonable opportunity  to respond");  see also Roadway  Express,
________ _________________



          Inc. v.  Piper, 447 U.S.  752, 764-67 (1980);  Cronin v. Town  of
____     _____                                 ______    ________



          Amesbury, --- F.3d ---, ---, No.  95-1957, slip. op. at 7-10 (1st
________



          Cir. April 16, 1996).



                    The judgment below is affirmed.
affirmed
________





































                                         -3-