Santanelli v. Remington Arms Company, LLC

Filing

OPINION issued by Jeffrey R. Howard, Appellate Judge; Bruce M. Selya, Appellate Judge and Rogeriee Thompson, Appellate Judge. Per Curiam. Unpublished. [12-1030]

Case: 12-1030

Document: 00116390009

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/11/2012

Entry ID: 5648005

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 12-1030
STEVEN SANTANELLI,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. William E. Smith, U.S. District Judge]

Before
Howard, Selya and Thompson,
Circuit Judges.

Michael S. Pezzullo on brief for appellant.
James B. Vogts, with whom Andrew A. Lothson, Swanson, Martin
& Bell, LLP, Michael J. Daly and Pierce Atwood LLP, were on brief
for appellee.

June 11, 2012

Case: 12-1030

Document: 00116390009

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/11/2012

Entry ID: 5648005

Per Curiam. In this case, the plaintiff, an avid hunter,
sued the defendant, a gun manufacturer, for injuries received when
his rifle accidentally discharged.

After removing the case to

federal court, the defendant sought dismissal for "failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted," Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6), arguing that suit had been brought too late.

The

district court wrote a thoughtful rescript granting the defendant's
motion.

Santanelli v. Remington Arms Co., No. 11-0245, 2011 WL

6003199, at *3 (D.R.I. Nov. 30, 2011).

This appeal ensued.

We have stated before, and today reaffirm, that when a
district court accurately takes the measure of a case, applies the
appropriate legal rules, and puts forth a convincing rationale, "an
appellate court should refrain from writing at length to no other
end than to hear its own words resonate."

Lawton v. State Mut.

Life Assur. Co., 101 F.3d 218, 220 (1st Cir. 1996).

We regularly

have adhered to this principle where it is applicable, see, e.g.,
Cruz-Ramos v. P.R. Sun Oil Co., 202 F.3d 381, 383 (1st Cir. 2000);
Ayala v. Union de Tronquistas, Local 901, 74 F.3d 344, 345 (1st
Cir. 1996); Holders Capital Corp. v. Cal. Union Ins. Co. (In re San
Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig.), 989 F.2d 36, 38 (1st Cir.
1993), and this case comes within that integument.

Consequently,

we affirm the judgment below for substantially the reasons set
forth in the district court's well-crafted opinion.

-2-

Case: 12-1030

Document: 00116390009

Page: 3

We need go no further.

Date Filed: 06/11/2012

Entry ID: 5648005

As the district court explained,

this action was commenced well beyond Rhode Island's three-year
statute of limitations, see R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-14(b), and the socalled discovery rule affords the plaintiff no surcease.

Affirmed.

-3-