PRAICO, et al v. Rivera-Vazquez, et al

Filing 920100505

Opinion

var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
var floatwnd = 0

var WPFootnote1 = ' There are two appeals, one from the entry of a partial\
judgment and the other from the entry of a final judgment (which\
subsumes the partial judgment). For all practical purposes, the\
two appeals have merged. See SEC v. SG Ltd., 265 F.3d 42, 44 (1st\
Cir. 2001).\
'

var WPFootnote2 = ' Integrand Assurance Company is also listed on the\
consolidated briefs as an appellee, but we are unable to ascertain\
how Integrand is involved in these appeals. We leave it to the\
district court, on remand, to resolve Integrand\'s status.\
'

var WPFootnote3 = ' Neither side challenges the district court\'s\
characterization of the objection as a motion. We therefore take\
no view of the accuracy of that taxonomy.\
'

var WPFootnote4 = ' This motion targeted the appellants and two other\
defendants. We restrict our discussion to the appellants.\
'

var WPFootnote5 = ' The court denied relief to four of the insurance company\
plaintiffs. Those rulings are not before us.\
'

var WPFootnote6 = ' The court did not hinge any portion of this judgment or any\
of its underlying decisions on Rivera\'s guilty plea in the criminal\
case.\
'

var WPFootnote7 = ' The appellants also claim that (i) the facts set forth in\
the insurers\' SUF should have been ignored because these facts were\
supported only by inadmissable hearsay; and (ii) the record does\
not support an award of treble damages against Hurtado. We have no\
need to reach those claims today. \
'

var WPFootnote8 = ' To be sure, the parties bear the lion\'s share of the\
responsibility for the predicament in which the district court\
found itself. Had each of the parties filed responses to the\
other\'s SUF in compliance with the local rule, this problem easily\
could have been avoided.\
'

var WPFootnote9 = ' The insurers suggest that the district court\'s summary\
judgment orders can be upheld on the basis of Rivera\'s guilty plea\
in the criminal case. The district court did not address the\
effect of the plea, and the issue is not clear-cut. Thus, even\
though we have discretion to affirm a summary judgment order on\
alternate grounds, the course of prudence in this case is to allow\
the parties to raise the issue before the district court. See\
Velazquez-Rivera v. Danzig, 234 F.3d 790, 795 n.2 (1st Cir. 2000).\
'

function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
{
if( bInlineFloats )
eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
else
{
if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed )
floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
floatwnd.document.write( 'Close');
floatwnd.document.write( "