Vallejo, et al v. Santini-Padilla, et al

Filing 920100528

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 = '                   The affected defense attorney disputes plaintiffs\'\
characterization of the delay. Record evidence shows that she\
returned to work about two weeks after her husband died and neither\
requested nor received any alterations in the discovery schedule\
while coping with her loss.\
'

var WPFootnote2 = '                   The district court\'s October 20 order referred to\
defendants\' motion to strike as docket number 244; defendants\'\
motion to strike was docket number 242.\
'

var WPFootnote3 = '                   Defendants make two meritless challenges to our\
jurisdiction over this appeal. First, defendants assert that\
plaintiffs\' notice of appeal was untimely under Fed. R. App. P.\
4(a). This argument ignores the fact that notice was filed within\
thirty days of the court\'s amended judgment, which, as defendants\
conceded in their motion to clarify, was necessary to resolve a\
genuine ambiguity. Such a judgment "winds the appeals clock anew." \
Air Line Pilots Ass\'n v. Precision Valley Aviation, Inc., 26 F.3d\
220, 223 n.2 (1st Cir. 1994) (citing FTC v. Minneapolis-Honeywell\
Co., 344 U.S. 206, 211-12 (1952)).\
              Defendants next urge that the notice of appeal provided\
insufficient notice under Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1). We construe the\
requirements of Rule 3 liberally, "analyzing the notice of appeal\
in the context of the entire record." Constructora Andrade\
Gutiérrez, S.A. v. Am. Int\'l Ins. Co. of P.R., 467 F.3d 38, 44 (1st\
Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, although the\
caption of plaintiffs\' notice includes only Robert Vallejo, its\
text clearly refers to "Robert Vallejo and other plaintiffs." As\
the plaintiffs on appeal are the same three plaintiffs who have\
litigated this case from the outset, this filing provided\
defendants sufficient notice of their opponents on appeal. See\
Young v. Gordon, 330 F.3d 76, 80 (1st Cir. 2003); cf. Santos-Martinez v. Soto-Santiago, 863 F.2d 174, 175 (1st Cir. 1988)\
(finding a notice of appeal that "purported to be filed for \'all\
plaintiffs\'" inadequate when several of the original plaintiffs\
were not parties to the appeal).\
'

var WPFootnote4 = '                   To the extent that plaintiffs raised their present claims\
before the district court, it was solely and improperly in their\
motion for reconsideration of the sanction order. "[A]rguments\
that could have been raised before may not be raised for the first\
time in a motion for reconsideration." Marks 3 Zet-Ernst Marks\
GmBh & Co. KG v. Presstek, Inc., 455 F.3d 7, 16 (1st Cir. 2006); 11\
Charles A. Wright, et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 2810.1,\
at 127-28 (2d ed. 1995). Plaintiffs have not cited a single\
authority in support of their assertion that their failure to\
timely oppose the motion to dismiss did not constitute waiver, and\
their claim that the argument could not have been raised until\
after the sanction had been imposed is completely meritless.\
'

var WPFootnote5 = '                   Plaintiffs\' assertion that defendants\' allegedly superior\
resources somehow justified plaintiffs\' persistent noncompliance\
with court orders also fails. The claim ignores the court\'s\
repeated efforts to accommodate plaintiffs\' needs, which were met\
with continued violations.\
'

var WPFootnote6 = '                   Plaintiffs\' reliance on Malot v. Dorado Beach Cottages\
Associates, 478 F.3d 40 (1st Cir. 2007), in this regard is\
misplaced. In Malot, our determination that the district court\
abused its discretion rested in significant part on our finding\
that the various substantive factors militated against dismissal,\
id. at 43-45. Moreover, in Malot, there was no indication that\
plaintiffs had failed to avail themselves of the opportunity to\
contest dismissal by opposing defendants\' motion to dismiss. Id.\
at 43.\
'

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( "