
USCA1 Opinion

	




          April 19, 1994        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                              _________________________          No. 93-2219                                 ERIC APONTE, ET AL.,                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,                                          v.                         PUERTO RICO MARINE MANAGEMENT, INC.,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                              _________________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                    [Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                              _________________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,                                         ___________                         Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.                                              ______________                              _________________________               Harry Anduze Montano for appellants.               ____________________               Rafael Cuevas  Kuinlam with whom Antonio  Cuevas Delgado and               ______________________           _______________________          Cuevas, Kuinlam & Bermudez were on brief, for appellee.          __________________________                              __________________________                              __________________________                               Per Curiam.  This  case appears before us for  a second                    Per Curiam.                    __________          time.  In the earlier proceeding, we vacated the district court's          order  dismissing plaintiffs' libel claim.   See Aponte v. Puerto                                                       ___ ______    ______          Rico Marine Mgmt.,  Inc., No.  92-2056 (1st Cir.  Mar. 16,  1993)          ________________________          (unpublished).   On remand, defendant moved  for summary judgment          on the libel claim.  The district court, in a thoughtful opinion,          found   that  the   uncontradicted  evidence   showed   that  the          publication  of  the  allegedly  defamatory  comments  was  quite          limited and  fell comfortably within  the scope of  the qualified          privilege recognized by the Puerto Rico Supreme Court in Porto v.                                                                   _____          Bentley Puerto  Rico, Inc., No.  RE-89-123 (P.R. Dec.  23, 1992).          __________________________          See Aponte  v. Puerto Rico  Marine Mgmt., Inc.,  No. 91-2222(JP),          ___ ______     _______________________________          (D.P.R. Aug. 27, 1993).  Plaintiffs appeal.  We affirm.                    As  we have  indicated  before, when  a district  court          produces a well-reasoned opinion that reaches the correct result,          a reviewing tribunal should not rush to write at length merely to          put matters in its own  words.  See, e.g., In re  San Juan Dupont                                          ___  ____  ______________________          Plaza Hotel Fire Litig., 989  F.2d 36, 38 (1st Cir. 1993).  So it          _______________________          is here.  We agree  with the court below that, in this  case, the          summary judgment  record contains  no  evidence that  defendant's          publication  of the alleged libel  fell outside the  scope of the          qualified  privilege  available  under  Puerto  Rico  law.    We,          therefore, summarily affirm the judgment below, for substantially          the reasons articulated in the district court's rescript.  We add          only  that, in all  events, we  are hard-pressed  to see  how the          communication in question canplausibly be classified as libelous.                                          2                    We  need go no further.   The judgment  of the district          court is           Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.          Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.          ________   ___                                          3
