USCA1 Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

_________________________

No. 96-1770

MARIO GARCIA-QUINTERO, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs, Appellees,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellants.

_________________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

_________________________

[Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]

___________________

_________________________

Before

Selya, Circuit Judge,

_____________
Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
_____________

_________________________

Carlos Lugo-Fiol, Solicitor

________________
Deputy

Solicitor

General,

and

General, Edda Serrano-Blasini,

_____________________

Edgardo Rodriguez-Quilichini,
_____________________________

Assistant Solicitor General, on brief for appellants.

David P. Freedman, Mario J. Pab n and O'Neill & Borges on

__________________ _______________
_________________
brief for appellee First National Bank of Boston.

Jose M. Mu oz-Silva, Charles A. Cuprill-Hernandez, Carlos A.

___________________ ____________________________ _________
Surillo Pumarada and Charles

A. Cuprill-Hernandez Law Offices on

________________

_________________________________________

various briefs for appellee Northwestern Trading Co.

_________________________

MARCH 11, 1997

_________________________

Per Curiam.
Per Curiam.
__________

charges filed by

against,

inter
_____

the Puerto Rico Department

alia,
____

president, (Mario O.

Co.

This case had its genesis in

Delta

Petroleum

racketeering

of Justice (PR-DOJ)

(PR),

Ltd.,

Garcia-Quintero), and Northwestern

Delta's

Trading

Coincident with the filing of those charges, PR-DOJ seized,

without

prior

maintained by

judicial

Delta.

authorization,

two

bank

accounts

One such account was held by Banco Central

Hispa o for the benefit of First National Bank of Boston (Bank of

Boston).

The second was held directly by Bank of Boston.

Garcia-Quintero,

Trading

frame,

pursued various

however,

Delta

Bank

of

Boston,

and

avenues of

relief.

During this

became

the

subject

of

Northwestern

Chapter

time

11

proceedings in the bankruptcy court; a trustee was appointed; and

Bank of Boston opted

to remove an earlier-filed action

from the

commonwealth courts to the bankruptcy court.

In due season, Bank

of

alleging

Boston

cross-claimed

against

PR-DOJ,

that

the

aforementioned seizures were illegal and should be nullified.1

After considerable procedural skirmishing, the district

court withdrew its earlier reference to the bankruptcy court

assumed jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding.

Boston and Northwestern Trading

PR-DOJ did not

dated

Both Bank of

then moved for summary judgment.

file an opposition

August 9, 1995,

and

to either

the district

motion.

court granted

By

order

the motions.

____________________

1Throughout
reference for
also

this opinion,

we use

all appellants (who

the Commonwealth

of Puerto

agents of the Commonwealth).

"PR-DOJ" as

include not
Rico

a shorthand

only PR-DOJ

and divers

but

officers and

PR-DOJ

moved for reconsideration, Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), but the

court, by order dated February 5, 1996, refused to budge.

now appeals.

The

its reasoning,

PR-DOJ

We summarily affirm.

district court has

and we see scant

written two

orders explaining

need to wax longiloquent.

See
___

Lawton v. State Mut. Life Assurance Co. of Am., 101 F.3d 218, 220
______
____________________________________

(1st

Cir. 1996)

(stating that

"when a

lower court

comprehensive, well-reasoned decision, an appellate

refrain from writing

own

words resonate");

Litig.,
______

at length to no other end

court should

than to hear its

In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire

_________________________________________

989 F.2d 36, 38 (1st Cir. 1993) (similar).

we affirm

produces a

the judgment for substantially

Accordingly,

the reasons elucidated

in the district court's orders, adding a few brief comments.

1.
1.

It is

important to bear in

mind that this appeal

tests only the denial of PR-DOJ's motion for reconsideration.

considering

such

an assignment

unless the record displays

of error,

we will

In

not reverse

a palpable abuse of discretion.

See
___

Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Precision Valley Aviation, Inc., 26 F.3d

_____________________
_______________________________

220, 227

(1st Cir. 1994);

(1st Cir. 1993).

2.
2.

have

vigorously

obvious

belatedly)

urges that the

the removed

commonwealth courts.

question anent the

vis- -vis the

(if

jurisdiction, and

reconsidered because

remanded to the

Lopez, 991 F.2d

_____

878, 888

We detect none here.

PR-DOJ

district court's

Fragoso v.
_______

denial

of

We need

motion

to

the

court should

action should

existence of

contests

have been

not address

the

appellate jurisdiction

remand,

see
___

generally
_________

Thermtron Prods., Inc.

_______________________

(1976),

inasmuch

v.

as the

Hermansdorfer, 423
_____________

appellant's

attacks

U.S. 336

on the

350-52

district

court's subject matter jurisdiction fail.

federal court appropriately exercises subject matter

jurisdiction over state court claims upon removal when the claims

are

sufficiently "related"

to bankruptcy

U.S.C.

1334, 1452 (1994). "[T]he

proceeding is

civil

outcome of that

the

estate

related

to

proceedings.

test for determining whether

bankruptcy

proceeding could conceivably have

being administered

in

See 28
___

bankruptcy."

is whether

the

any effect on

In re G.S.F.
_____________

Corp.,
_____

938 F.2d

Higgins, 743
_______

1467, 1475

(1st Cir.

F.2d 984, 994 (3d

1991) (quoting

Cir. 1984)).

In

Pacor v.
_____

this case, the

district court properly exercised jurisdiction over the claims to

compel the return of the seized property because those claims had

a direct and significant

United States
_____________

effect on the bankruptcy estate.2

v. Star Rte. Box 1328, 137 B.R. 802,

___________________

1992) (holding

that a

satisfied

relatedness test).

properly

court.

the

withdrawn by

See 28 U.S.C.
___

3.
3.

PR-DOJ

____________________

case involving federal

the

Moreover,

district court

See
___

805 (D. Or.

civil forfeitures

the claims

from the

were

bankruptcy

157(d) (1994).

offers

as

an

additional

reason

for

2To be
the seized
law.

But

sure, PR-DOJ

emphasizes that the

property depend
"federal

jurisdiction, and

primarily on Puerto

courts

. . . even

are

(1st

not

lightly

Rico forfeiture
to

a difficult issue of

parallel pending state litigation

to abstain."

issues concerning

relinquish

state law or

is not automatically a warrant

Lundborg v. Phoenix Leasing, Inc., 91 F.3d 265, 272

________
_____________________

Cir. 1996).

Thus, the

district court

did not

abuse its

considerable discretion by deeming itself competent to

determine

straightforward issues of Puerto Rico law.

reconsideration

its complaint

summary judgment without

that the

district court

offering it an opportunity

entered

to mount an

opposition.

This is

PR-DOJ

ample opportunity

had

motions, and

sheer persiflage.

to

instead neglected

The record

oppose

to do

reveals that

the summary

so.3

What is

judgment

more, the

district court did not grant the motions merely because they were

unopposed; rather, the court,

following settled precedent,

e.g., Kelly v. United States, 924

____ _____
_____________

Mendez
______

v.

Banco Popular,
______________

900

see,
___

F.2d 355, 358 (1st Cir. 1991);

F.2d

4,

(1st

Cir.

1990),

considered the motions on their merits, in light of the record as

constituted, and determined that judgment in favor of the movants

was legally appropriate.

The sockdolager,

has not suggested any

of course, is that

PR-DOJ, even now,

credible reason why Bank of

Boston and/or

Northwestern Trading are not entitled to judgment.

are

parties

property.

possessing

See P.R.
___

cognizable

Laws Ann.

tit. 34,

criminal proceedings

fizzled out,

Rico,

criminal

acquittal

seizure of

on

interests

the acquitted person's

in

the

seized

1723 (1991).

and under

charges

The claimants

the law

renders

The

of Puerto

governmental

property invalid.

See Carlo
___ _____

del Toro v.
________

Secretario de Justicia, 7 P.R. Off. Trans. 392, 398______________________

99 (1982).

In the face of

clear precedent, the district

court

____________________

3PR-DOJ's
security

by a

bankruptcy
case, no
endured

lament that it was

stay granted

lulled into a

earlier in

court holds little water.

reasonable lawyer would

after

the district

assumed jurisdiction.

court

false sense of

the proceedings
Given the

have concluded
withdrew

by the

record in this
that the

the reference

stay

and

acted appropriately in noticing

the acquittals and striking down

the seizures.

We need go no further.

Concluding, as

we do, that the

instant appeal is entirely without merit, we summarily affirm.

Affirmed.
Affirmed.
________