Pages v. Feingold ( 1997 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 96-1879
HECTOR PAGES, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellees,
v.
MANUEL FEINGOLD,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
Harry Hertzberg on brief for appellant.
Jesus E. Cuza, Ina M. Berlingeri-Vincenty and Goldman Antonetti &
Cordova on brief for appellees.
May 6, 1997
Per Curiam. Upon careful review of the briefs and
record, we conclude that this appeal clearly presents no
substantial question and that summary disposition is
appropriate. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
We further conclude that, for the reasons stated in the
May 8, 1996, order, the district court acted within its
discretion in entering default against defendant.
Defendant's repeated failures to comply with discovery and
other orders justified that sanction, of which defendant had
been warned. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C).
Further, for the reasons stated in the opinion and order
dated June 7, 1996, Pages v. Feingold, 928 F. Supp. 148
(D.P.R. 1996), the district court properly entered judgment
for plaintiff. The district court's findings that the
letters written by defendant were false and maliciously
published, that plaintiff suffered damages thereby, and that
plaintiff was a private figure, were amply supported by the
evidence presented at trial and consistent with applicable
Puerto Rico law as cited by the district court. And, we find
no factual or legal basis for defendant's assertion of a
qualified immunity defense, particularly in light of the
default.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying defendant's motion to recuse. The various remarks
about which defendant complains do not create a reasonable
-2-
doubt concerning the district judge's impartiality. See
United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33, 37 (1st Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff's motion to dismiss this appeal and for
sanctions is granted in part. In light of the numerous
violations of the appellate rules regarding the form and
content of the brief and appendix, we are persuaded that an
award of sanctions is appropriate. See Fed. R. App. P. 28 &
30; Reyes-Garcia v. Rodriguez & Del Valle, Inc., 82 F.3d 11,
14-16 (1st Cir. 1996). Therefore, we award double costs to
plaintiff, to be taxed jointly and severally against
defendant and his attorney. See Fed. R. App. P. 38.
Affirmed.
-3-