DocketNumber： 93-1899
Filed Date： 5/6/1994
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/21/2015
May 6, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
___________________
No. 93-1899
ARNOLD EMMA, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellees,
v.
PAUL B. MURPHY, ETC., ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellants.
__________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
___________________
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________
___________________
Nancy Ankers White, Special Assistant Attorney General, and
__________________
Peter J. Morin on brief for appellants.
______________
__________________
__________________
Per Curiam. Defendants appeal from a default
___________
judgment entered after they failed to file an answer or other
appearance within the time specified in the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. They argue that the district court erred in
denying their motion to remove the default, and in the
subsequent assessment of damages.
In the absence of legal error, we review the denial
of a motion to remove a default solely for an abuse of
discretion. General Contracting & Trading Co., LLC v.
__________________________________________
Interpole, Inc., 899 F.2d 109, 110 (1st Cir. 1990).
________________
Defendants offer no persuasive reason to suggest that the
district court abused its discretion and we perceive no abuse
in the record.
As to the assessment of damages, defendants failed
to timely file in the district court any opposition to
plaintiffs' two consecutive motions for assessment, despite
notice of each motion and an intervening order by the court
placing the case on the running trial list "should there be a
factual dispute as to the damages." Issues not properly
presented to the trial court will not be addressed for the
first time on appeal. United States v. Palmer, 956 F.2d 3, 6
_____________ ______
(1st Cir. 1992).
Affirmed.
________
-2-