
USCA1 Opinion

	




        September 28, 1992      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                 ____________________        No. 92-1097                           BAY FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ET AL.,                                       Debtors,                                                                                      __________                                LOLI V. GREGOR, D/B/A                                    HSIN-MEI, CO.,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                          THE NEWPORT INN JOINT VENTURE AND                     BAY FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                   [Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]                                               ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,                                         ___________                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,                                     ____________________                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.                                        _____________                                 ____________________            Loli V. Gregor on brief pro se.            ______________            Jack Weinberg and Graubard,  Mollen, Horowitz, Pomeranz  & Shapiro            _____________     ________________________________________________        on  brief for  appellees,  The  Newport  Inn  Joint  Venture  and  Bay        Financial Corporation and Subsidiaries.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.  The judgment of  the district court is                      __________            affirmed  for  the reasons  stated  in  the district  court's            ________            December 19, 1991 memorandum and order.                                         -2-
