Emanuel v. Small Business Administration

First Circuit

Emanuel v. Small Business Administration

6 F. App'x 37

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedApril 10, 2001

Docket00-1209

StatusPublished

This text of 6 F. App'x 37 (Emanuel v. Small Business Administration) 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

Emanuel v. Small Business Administration, 6 F. App'x 37 (1st Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After carefully considering the briefs and record on appeal, we affirm substantially for the reasons developed in the district court. We add only the following.

Mr. Emanuel argues on appeal that the district court improperly dismissed Quality’s claim for breach of a duty to foreclose in a commercially reasonable manner. Although we express no opinion about the existence of such a cause of action, since *38 we have already dismissed the corporation’s appeal, the claim is not before us.

The appellant also argues that the court erred in refusing to allow him to represent Quality, and may intend to suggest that the court erred in dismissing a claim he held as guarantor. Below, Appellant raised the issues belatedly and the court finally dismissed the action for failure to prosecute without considering them. The court found that, despite numerous extensions and warnings, the appellant repeatedly failed to meet deadlines. The case was nearly three years old, but presented no discernable claim. Under the circumstances, the court did not abuse its considerable discretion in dismissing, nor does the appellant present any argument that it did. John’s Insulation, Inc. v. L. Addison and Associates, Inc., 156 F.3d 101 (1st Cir.1998).

Appellant raises no other issue on appeal that was properly presented below. Hernandez-Hernandez v. United States, 904 F.2d 758, 763 (1st Cir.l990)(arguments may not be presented for the first time on appeal).

Affirmed. Loe. R. 27(c).

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

PER CURIAM.

After carefully considering the briefs and record on appeal, we affirm substantially for the reasons developed in the district court. We add only the following.

Mr. Emanuel argues on appeal that the district court improperly dismissed Quality’s claim for breach of a duty to foreclose in a commercially reasonable manner. Although we express no opinion about the existence of such a cause of action, since *38 we have already dismissed the corporation’s appeal, the claim is not before us.

The appellant also argues that the court erred in refusing to allow him to represent Quality, and may intend to suggest that the court erred in dismissing a claim he held as guarantor. Below, Appellant raised the issues belatedly and the court finally dismissed the action for failure to prosecute without considering them. The court found that, despite numerous extensions and warnings, the appellant repeatedly failed to meet deadlines. The case was nearly three years old, but presented no discernable claim. Under the circumstances, the court did not abuse its considerable discretion in dismissing, nor does the appellant present any argument that it did. John’s Insulation, Inc. v. L. Addison and Associates, Inc., 156 F.3d 101 (1st Cir.1998).

Appellant raises no other issue on appeal that was properly presented below. Hernandez-Hernandez v. United States, 904 F.2d 758, 763 (1st Cir.l990)(arguments may not be presented for the first time on appeal).

Affirmed. Loe. R. 27(c).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 F. App'x 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emanuel-v-small-business-administration-ca1-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack