Vargas Alicea v. Consortium Mayagüez/Las Marias , 173 F. App'x 6 ( 2006 )

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 05-2664
FERNANDO VARGAS ALICEA ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
CONSORTIUM MAYAGÜEZ/LAS MARIAS ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., Senior U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Selya and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
Israel Roldán González for appellants.
Edelmiro Salas González for appellee Consortium Mayagüez/Las
Marías.
Vanesa Vicéns Sánchez, with whom Juan Rafael González Muñoz
and González Muñoz & Vicéns Sánchez were on brief, for remaining
appellees.
March 24, 2006
Per Curiam. In this case, the primary plaintiff, a
disabled youth, charges the defendants (all public entities or
officials) with disability discrimination.1 After a lengthy period
of pretrial discovery, the district court wrote a thoughtful
rescript granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Vargas Alicea v. Consortium Mayaguez/Las Marias, 360 F. Supp. 2d
367 (D.P.R. 2005). This appeal followed.
We have stated before, and today reaffirm, that when a
trial court accurately takes the measure of a case, applies the
appropriate legal rules, and articulates a convincing rationale,
"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). We
frequently have followed this admonition in suitable instances,
see, e.g., Cruz-Ramos v. P.R. Sun Oil Co., 202 F.3d 381, 383 (1st
Cir. 2000); Ayala v. Union de Tronquistas, 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. 1993), and the case at hand fits neatly within that
integument. Consequently, we affirm the judgment below for
substantially the reasons set forth in the lower court's well-
crafted opinion.
1
The claims of the remaining plaintiffs are purely derivative
and need not be analyzed separately.
-2-
We add only that the central question here is not, as the
plaintiffs assume, who was responsible for obtaining the waiver
needed to satisfy the Government Ethics Office. The question,
rather, is whether there is sufficient evidence that either the
waiver requirement or the failure to procure the waiver was
attributable to disability discrimination. On this record, that
question must be answered in the negative.
We need go no further. Having perused the briefs,
entertained oral argument, and carefully canvassed the record, we,
like the district court, find no significantly probative evidence
sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact on the
question of discriminatory animus. Accordingly, the defendants
were, as the district court ruled, entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.
Affirmed. No Costs.
-3-