Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Morales-Tirado v. Sanches-Rodriguez, 1st Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views3 pages
    The US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit affirmed the lower court's denial of a motion to set aside judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The appeals court concluded that the lower court did not abuse its discretion given the repeated failure of the plaintiff's counsel to comply with court orders or adequately explain his actions before experiencing a family crisis. The acts or omissions of counsel are attributed to the client, so there was no abuse of discretion even if the failures were those of counsel rather than the appellant.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-02-08 Precedential Status: Precedential Docket: 99-1807

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit affirmed the lower court's denial of a motion to set aside judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The appeals court concluded that the lower court did not abuse its discretion given the repeated failure of the plaintiff's counsel to comply with court orders or adequately explain his actions before experiencing a family crisis. The acts or omissions of counsel are attributed to the client, so there was no abuse of discretion even if the failures were those of counsel rather than the appellant.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views3 pages

    Morales-Tirado v. Sanches-Rodriguez, 1st Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit affirmed the lower court's denial of a motion to set aside judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The appeals court concluded that the lower court did not abuse its discretion given the repeated failure of the plaintiff's counsel to comply with court orders or adequately explain his actions before experiencing a family crisis. The acts or omissions of counsel are attributed to the client, so there was no abuse of discretion even if the failures were those of counsel rather than the appellant.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    USCA1 Opinion

    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]


    United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit

    No. 99-1807

    CARLOS MORALES-TIRADO,

    Plaintiff, Appellant,

    v.

    ISRAEL SANCHEZ-RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.,

    Defendants, Appellees.

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

    [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]

    Before

    Selya, Circuit Judge,


    Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
    and Lipez, Circuit Judge.

    Emilio F. Soler on brief for appellant.


    Suzette M. Del Valle Lecaroz and Law Offices Benjamin Acosta,
    Jr. on brief for appellees.

    February 2, 2000

    Per Curiam.

    After a careful review of the record

    and of the parties' submissions, we affirm.

    We conclude that

    the lower court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
    motion to set aside judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), given
    counsel's repeated failure before his family crisis to comply
    with court orders or adequately to explain his actions.
    "Although we are not unsympathetic to appellant['s] plight in
    this case, . . . the acts or omissions of counsel are visited
    upon the client[.]"

    Pinero Capo v. United States, 7 F.3d 283,

    285 & n. 2 (1st Cir. 1993) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370
    U.S. 626 (1962)) (additional citations omitted).

    We find no

    abuse of discretion, even if the failures here were those of


    counsel and not of the appellant.
    Affirmed.

    1st Cir. Loc. R. 27(c).

    You might also like