Pabon Rodriguez v. Lee , 17 F. App'x 5 ( 2001 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION — NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 00-9011
IN RE RAMON A. PABON RODRIGUEZ ET AL.,
Debtors.
__________
NICASIO LOPEZ JIMENEZ ET AL.,
Appellants,
v.
RICHARD A. LEE, TRUSTEE, ETC.,
Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Selya, Circuit Judge,
and Saris,* District Judge.
Miguel E. Bonilla Sierra for appellants.
Antonio Fiol Matta for appellee
AUGUST 20, 2001
______________
*Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.
Per Curiam. This bankruptcy appeal arises out of a
dispute over property rights. The case was removed to the
bankruptcy court when the defendants filed for bankruptcy. In
due course, the trustee in bankruptcy, acting for the debtors
qua defendants, sought summary judgment. The plaintiffs
(appellants here) did not timely oppose the motion, and the
bankruptcy court granted it. Jimenez v. Rodriquez, 233 B.R. 212(Bankr. D.P.R. 1999). The plaintiffs appealed. They also filed
a number of post-judgment motions, all of which were
unsuccessful. At that point, they filed a second appeal. The
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) heard the consolidated appeals
and issued an unpublished per curiam opinion affirming the
bankruptcy court's rulings in all respects. This appeal ensued.
We need not tarry. We repeatedly have said that where
the lower courts astutely take the measure of a case and author
convincing, well-reasoned opinions, "an appellate court should
refrain from writing at length to no other end than to hear its
own words resonate." Lawton v. State Mut. Life Assur. Co., 101
F.3d 218, 220 (1st Cir. 1996); accord Cruz-Ramos v. P.R. Sun Oil
Co., 202 F.3d 381, 383 (1st Cir. 2000); Ayala v. Union de
Tronquistas de P.R., Local 901, 74 F.3d 344, 345 (1st Cir.
1996); Holders Capital Corp. v. Cal. Union Ins. Co. (In re San
Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig.), 989 F.2d 36, 38 (1st Cir.
-3-
1993). This is such a case. Hence, we affirm the judgment
below for substantially the reasons elucidated in Judge
Lamoutte's lucid rescript and further elaborated in the BAP's
thoughtful opinion. We add only that this case proves what
should be obvious: parties who do not deign to respond to
dispositive motions in a timely fashion run considerable risks.
See generally Kelly v. United States, 924 F.2d 355, 358 (1st
Cir. 1991) (warning of the dangers of giving one's litigation
adversary a free hand in configuring the summary judgment
record). Those risks are insurmountable here, where the
plaintiffs, who had the burden of proof on the pivotal
allegations, filed nothing to support those allegations.
We need go no further. As we have said, "[t]he law
ministers to the vigilant, not to those who sleep upon
perceptible rights." Puleio v. Vose, 830 F.2d 1197, 1203 (1st
cir. 1987). So it is here. Accordingly, the judgment below is
summarily
Affirmed.
-4-