Gianfriddo v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

First Circuit

Gianfriddo v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

787 F.2d 6, 48 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 642, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 23209, 39 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 35,994

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedMarch 21, 1986

DocketNos. 85-1604, 85-1605

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 787 F.2d 6 (Gianfriddo v. Western Union Telegraph Co.) 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

Gianfriddo v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 787 F.2d 6, 48 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 642, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 23209, 39 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 35,994 (1st Cir. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Vincent A. Gianfriddo, seeks reversal of the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee, Western Union Telegraph Co., on Count II of his age discrimination complaint, and reversal of that court’s order denying his motion for leave to amend the complaint. For the reasons stated in the district court’s Memorandum and Order of June 7, 1985, we affirm the judgments on these issues.

Appellee cross-appeals from the district court’s denial of attorney’s fees. We share the district court’s concern for the way appellant conducted this case, “especially the plaintiff’s indifference towards Local Rule 12 and his unexcused failure to heed the final extension order dated February 25, 1985”. We think it a close judgment call whether or not the district court should have assessed attorney’s fees, but cannot say that the court abused its discretion.

Once having had full consideration in the district court, however, and the benefit of that court’s painstaking 17 page opinion, we can discern no plausible justification for prolonging this litigation. We therefore assess, as a sanction for a frivolous appeal under Fed.R.App.P. 38 and 28 U.S.C. § 1912, double costs and an attorney’s fee of $500 against appellant. If appellant’s counsel did not advise against the propriety of taking this appeal, see Rule 3.1, ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct,

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Vincent A. Gianfriddo, seeks reversal of the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee, Western Union Telegraph Co., on Count II of his age discrimination complaint, and reversal of that court’s order denying his motion for leave to amend the complaint. For the reasons stated in the district court’s Memorandum and Order of June 7, 1985, we affirm the judgments on these issues.

Appellee cross-appeals from the district court’s denial of attorney’s fees. We share the district court’s concern for the way appellant conducted this case, “especially the plaintiff’s indifference towards Local Rule 12 and his unexcused failure to heed the final extension order dated February 25, 1985”. We think it a close judgment call whether or not the district court should have assessed attorney’s fees, but cannot say that the court abused its discretion.

Once having had full consideration in the district court, however, and the benefit of that court’s painstaking 17 page opinion, we can discern no plausible justification for prolonging this litigation. We therefore assess, as a sanction for a frivolous appeal under Fed.R.App.P. 38 and 28 U.S.C. § 1912, double costs and an attorney’s fee of $500 against appellant. If appellant’s counsel did not advise against the propriety of taking this appeal, see Rule 3.1, ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

787 F.2d 6, 48 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 642, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 23209, 39 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 35,994, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gianfriddo-v-western-union-telegraph-co-ca1-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack