Acosta v. Puerto Rico Department of Health

First Circuit

Acosta v. Puerto Rico Department of Health

96 F. App'x 4

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedMay 7, 2004

Docket03-2121

StatusPublished

This text of 96 F. App'x 4 (Acosta v. Puerto Rico Department of Health) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Acosta v. Puerto Rico Department of Health, 96 F. App'x 4 (1st Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was taken from a refusal of the district court to stay discovery pending its decision on certain dispositive motions. The district court decided those motions on March 31, 2004. This appeal is, therefore, moot. 1 See CMM Cable Rep., Inc. v. Ocean Coast Props., Inc., 48 F.3d 618, 621 (1st Cir.1995) (explaining that “an appeal, although live when taken, may be rendered moot by subsequent developments”).

In addition, the defendants have filed a motion to stay discovery in the district court pending the determination of the appeals that they have taken from the district court’s March 31 orders. That motion is not properly filed in this proceeding. In all events, the record does not reflect that similar relief was requested and denied in the lower court. Consequently, even were the motion properly before us, we would reject it. See Beaulieu v. IRS, 865 F.2d 1351, 1352 (1st Cir. 1989) (“[I]t is a party’s first obligation to seek any relief that might fairly have been though available in the district court before seeking it on appeal.”).

We need go no further. This appeal is terminated.

The appeal is dismissed as moot and the motion to stay is denied without prejudice. Costs will be taxed in favor of the appellees.

1

. Because the appeal is dismissed as moot, we need not decide — and take no view on— the appealability vel non of the initial stay order.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was taken from a refusal of the district court to stay discovery pending its decision on certain dispositive motions. The district court decided those motions on March 31, 2004. This appeal is, therefore, moot. 1 See CMM Cable Rep., Inc. v. Ocean Coast Props., Inc., 48 F.3d 618, 621 (1st Cir.1995) (explaining that “an appeal, although live when taken, may be rendered moot by subsequent developments”).

In addition, the defendants have filed a motion to stay discovery in the district court pending the determination of the appeals that they have taken from the district court’s March 31 orders. That motion is not properly filed in this proceeding. In all events, the record does not reflect that similar relief was requested and denied in the lower court. Consequently, even were the motion properly before us, we would reject it. See Beaulieu v. IRS, 865 F.2d 1351, 1352 (1st Cir. 1989) (“[I]t is a party’s first obligation to seek any relief that might fairly have been though available in the district court before seeking it on appeal.”).

We need go no further. This appeal is terminated.

The appeal is dismissed as moot and the motion to stay is denied without prejudice. Costs will be taxed in favor of the appellees.

1

. Because the appeal is dismissed as moot, we need not decide — and take no view on— the appealability vel non of the initial stay order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 F. App'x 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acosta-v-puerto-rico-department-of-health-ca1-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack