Schofield v. French

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 99-1331
HAROLD SCHOFIELD; ATLANTEK, INC.,
Plaintiffs, Appellees,
PAUL CARON; CHRISTOPHER ROTHWELL; EDWARD NARDONE;
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN FRENCH, a/k/a Bar Code Systems, Inc.,
Defendant, Appellant,
DATACARD CORPORATION; THOMAS CASEY; TRUSTEE,
Defendants, Appellees,
BAR CODE SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Circuit Judge,
Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lipez, Circuit Judge.
John French on brief pro se.
Dennis R. Gannon on brief for appellees Harold Schofield and
Atlantek, Inc.
Richard W. MacAdams, Denean M. Russo and MacAdams & Wieck
Incorporated on brief for appellee Datacard Corporation.
May 25, 2000
Per Curiam. After a thorough review of the record
and of the parties’ submissions, we affirm.
It appears that appellant, John French (“French”),
has disavowed the main argument he made below: that the
terms in the referenced consulting contracts were
unenforceable against him because they were not attached to
the written contract he signed. To the extent French has
disavowed that argument, he has waived any further
opportunity to challenge the district court’s ruling on this
point. See Martinez v. Colon, 54 F.3d 980, 990 (1st Cir.
1995). Even if his argument is not waived, it is meritless,
for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion dated
February 9, 1999. French’s fraud claim also is meritless,
for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion.
French’s remaining arguments are forfeited, as they are
raised for the first time on appeal. Id. Appellant may not
excuse his omissions by blaming them on his former attorney;
parties are bound by the actions of their attorneys, and
“[a]ny other notion would be wholly inconsistent with our
system of representative litigation.” See Scola v. Beaulieu
Wielsbeke, 131 F.3d 1073, 1075 (1st Cir. 1997).
Affirmed. 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27(c).