
USCA1 Opinion

	




        December 28, 1995       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                                            ____________________        No. 95-1267                                PETER RAYMOND CUMMINGS,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                           HONORABLE EDWARD W. HANSON, JR.,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________        No. 95-1418                                PETER RAYMOND CUMMINGS,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                            EDWARD W. HANSON, JR., ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                      [Hon. Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Judge]                                           ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Matthew  Cobb  on  Opposition  to  Appellees'  Motion for  Summary            _____________        Affirmance and Motion to Dismiss Appeal.            W. Mark Dunn,  Assistant Attorney General,  on Motion  for Summary            ____________        Affirmance for appellees the  Honorable Edward W. Hanson, Jr.  and the        Honorable Ronald H. Marks.            William Shaw  McDermott,  William  C.  Nystrom and  Kirkpatrick  &            _______________________   ____________________      ______________        Lockhart  on Motion for Summary Disposition for appellee Dominion Bank        ________        of Greater Hampton Roads, N.A.            Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, Alan R. Miller, John N. Love,  J.            _______________________________  ______________  ____________   __        Jonathan Schraub, and Danny M. Howell on Motion for Summary Affirmance        ________________      _______________        for appellees John W. Richardson, Stallings, Richardson & Rawls, P.C.,        John F. Rixey, Julian A. Bryant, Jr., Dinsmore, Evans and Bryant,  and        Joseph Lyle, Jr.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.  We agree with  the district court that                      __________            appellant  had   no  business  bringing  this   case  in  the            Massachusetts  district  court.     Whatever  thin  technical            arguments could be made in favor of personal jurisdiction and            venue in Massachusetts, appellant's  counsel had to know that            this case would be dismissed or transferred to Virginia since            it  had ample contacts with  Virginia and virtually none with            Massachusetts.  Indeed,  counsel acknowledged  that the  case            was  likely  to  be  transferred  to  Virginia  even  if  the            technical arguments prevailed.                      Under these circumstances, we think  that dismissal            rather  than  transfer  was  a permissible  choice  and  that            sanctions of $1,000 jointly  and $1,000 against counsel alone            were appropriate.  We prefer  to rest our affirmance entirely            on Fed.  R. Civ. P.  11(b)(1) (improper purpose)  rather than            11(b)(2)   (frivolous  legal   contentions)   but   have   no            disagreement  whatever as to  the total amount.   The request            for  further sanctions  on appeal  is denied, but  counsel is            cautioned against a repetition of such conduct.                      Affirmed.                      ________                                         -3-
