
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                              _________________________          No. 96-1770                            MARIO GARCIA-QUINTERO, ET AL.,                                Plaintiffs, Appellees,                                          v.                         COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, ET AL.,                               Defendants, Appellants.                              _________________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                              _________________________                   [Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]                                               ___________________                              _________________________                                        Before                                Selya, Circuit Judge,                                       _____________                            Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,                                    ____________________                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.                                         _____________                              _________________________               Carlos Lugo-Fiol, Solicitor  General, Edda  Serrano-Blasini,               ________________                      _____________________          Deputy  Solicitor  General,  and   Edgardo  Rodriguez-Quilichini,                                             _____________________________          Assistant Solicitor General, on brief for appellants.               David  P. Freedman, Mario J.  Pab n and O'Neill  & Borges on               __________________  _______________     _________________          brief for appellee First National Bank of Boston.               Jose M. Mu oz-Silva, Charles A. Cuprill-Hernandez, Carlos A.               ___________________  ____________________________  _________          Surillo Pumarada and Charles  A. Cuprill-Hernandez Law Offices on          ________________     _________________________________________          various briefs for appellee Northwestern Trading Co.                              _________________________                                    MARCH 11, 1997                              _________________________                    Per Curiam.  This case had its genesis in  racketeering                    Per Curiam.                    __________          charges filed by  the Puerto Rico Department  of Justice (PR-DOJ)          against,  inter  alia,   Delta  Petroleum  (PR),  Ltd.,   Delta's                    _____  ____          president, (Mario O.  Garcia-Quintero), and Northwestern  Trading          Co.   Coincident with the filing of those charges, PR-DOJ seized,          without   prior  judicial   authorization,   two  bank   accounts          maintained by  Delta.  One such account was held by Banco Central          Hispa o for the benefit of First National Bank of Boston (Bank of          Boston).  The second was held directly by Bank of Boston.                    Garcia-Quintero,  Bank  of  Boston,   and  Northwestern          Trading  pursued various  avenues of  relief.   During this  time          frame,  however,   Delta  became   the  subject  of   Chapter  11          proceedings in the bankruptcy court; a trustee was appointed; and          Bank of Boston opted  to remove an earlier-filed action  from the          commonwealth courts to the bankruptcy court.  In due season, Bank          of  Boston  cross-claimed  against   PR-DOJ,  alleging  that  the          aforementioned seizures were illegal and should be nullified.1                    After considerable procedural skirmishing, the district          court withdrew its earlier reference to the bankruptcy court  and          assumed jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding.  Both Bank of          Boston and Northwestern Trading  then moved for summary judgment.          PR-DOJ did not  file an opposition  to either  motion.  By  order          dated  August 9, 1995,  the district  court granted  the motions.                                        ____________________               1Throughout  this opinion,  we use  "PR-DOJ" as  a shorthand          reference for  all appellants (who  include not  only PR-DOJ  but          also  the Commonwealth  of Puerto  Rico  and divers  officers and          agents of the Commonwealth).                                          2          PR-DOJ  moved for reconsideration, Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), but the          court, by order dated February 5, 1996, refused to budge.  PR-DOJ          now appeals.  We summarily affirm.                    The  district court has  written two  orders explaining          its reasoning,  and we see scant  need to wax longiloquent.   See                                                                        ___          Lawton v. State Mut. Life Assurance Co. of Am., 101 F.3d 218, 220          ______    ____________________________________          (1st  Cir. 1996)  (stating that  "when a  lower court  produces a          comprehensive, well-reasoned decision, an appellate  court should          refrain from writing  at length to no other end  than to hear its          own  words resonate");  In re  San Juan  Dupont Plaza  Hotel Fire                                  _________________________________________          Litig.,  989 F.2d 36, 38 (1st Cir. 1993) (similar).  Accordingly,          ______          we affirm  the judgment for substantially  the reasons elucidated          in the district court's orders, adding a few brief comments.                    1.   It is  important to bear in  mind that this appeal                    1.          tests only the denial of PR-DOJ's motion for reconsideration.  In          considering  such  an assignment  of error,  we will  not reverse          unless the record displays  a palpable abuse of discretion.   See                                                                        ___          Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Precision Valley Aviation, Inc., 26 F.3d          _____________________    _______________________________          220, 227  (1st Cir. 1994);  Fragoso v.  Lopez, 991 F.2d  878, 888                                      _______     _____          (1st Cir. 1993).  We detect none here.                    2.   PR-DOJ  vigorously  (if  belatedly)  contests  the                    2.          district court's  jurisdiction, and  urges that the  court should          have  reconsidered because  the removed  action should  have been          remanded to the  commonwealth courts.   We need  not address  the          obvious  question anent the  existence of  appellate jurisdiction          vis- -vis the  denial  of  a  motion  to  remand,  see  generally                                                             ___  _________                                          3          Thermtron  Prods., Inc.  v.  Hermansdorfer, 423  U.S. 336  350-52          _______________________      _____________          (1976),  inasmuch  as the  appellant's  attacks  on the  district          court's subject matter jurisdiction fail.                    A  federal court appropriately exercises subject matter          jurisdiction over state court claims upon removal when the claims          are  sufficiently "related"  to bankruptcy  proceedings.   See 28                                                                     ___          U.S.C.    1334, 1452 (1994). "[T]he  test for determining whether          a  civil  proceeding is  related  to  bankruptcy  is whether  the          outcome of that  proceeding could conceivably have  any effect on          the  estate  being administered  in  bankruptcy."   In  re G.S.F.                                                              _____________          Corp.,  938 F.2d  1467, 1475  (1st Cir.  1991) (quoting  Pacor v.          _____                                                    _____          Higgins, 743  F.2d 984, 994 (3d  Cir. 1984)).  In  this case, the          _______          district court properly exercised jurisdiction over the claims to          compel the return of the seized property because those claims had          a direct and significant  effect on the bankruptcy estate.2   See                                                                        ___          United States  v. Star Rte. Box  1328, 137 B.R. 802,  805 (D. Or.          _____________     ___________________          1992) (holding  that a  case involving federal  civil forfeitures          satisfied  the  relatedness test).    Moreover,  the claims  were          properly  withdrawn by  the  district court  from the  bankruptcy          court.  See 28 U.S.C.   157(d) (1994).                  ___                    3.     PR-DOJ  offers  as  an   additional  reason  for                    3.                                        ____________________               2To be  sure, PR-DOJ  emphasizes that the  issues concerning          the seized  property depend  primarily on Puerto  Rico forfeiture          law.    But  "federal  courts  are  not  lightly  to   relinquish          jurisdiction, and  . . . even  a difficult issue of  state law or          parallel pending state litigation  is not automatically a warrant          to abstain."  Lundborg v. Phoenix Leasing, Inc., 91 F.3d 265, 272                        ________    _____________________          (1st  Cir. 1996).   Thus, the  district court  did not  abuse its          considerable discretion by deeming itself competent to  determine          straightforward issues of Puerto Rico law.                                          4          reconsideration  its complaint  that the  district court  entered          summary judgment without  offering it an opportunity  to mount an          opposition.  This is  sheer persiflage.  The record  reveals that          PR-DOJ  had  ample opportunity  to  oppose  the summary  judgment          motions, and  instead neglected  to do  so.3   What is  more, the          district court did not grant the motions merely because they were          unopposed; rather, the court,  following settled precedent,  see,                                                                       ___          e.g., Kelly v. United States, 924  F.2d 355, 358 (1st Cir. 1991);          ____  _____    _____________          Mendez  v.  Banco  Popular,  900  F.2d  4,  7  (1st  Cir.  1990),          ______      ______________          considered the motions on their merits, in light of the record as          constituted, and determined that judgment in favor of the movants          was legally appropriate.                    The sockdolager,  of course, is that  PR-DOJ, even now,          has not suggested any  credible reason why Bank of  Boston and/or          Northwestern Trading are not entitled to judgment.  The claimants          are  parties  possessing  cognizable   interests  in  the  seized          property.    See P.R.  Laws Ann.  tit. 34,     1723 (1991).   The                       ___          criminal proceedings  fizzled out,  and under  the law  of Puerto          Rico,  acquittal  on  criminal  charges  renders  a  governmental          seizure of  the acquitted person's  property invalid.   See Carlo                                                                  ___ _____          del Toro v.  Secretario de Justicia, 7 P.R. Off. Trans. 392, 398-          ________     ______________________          99 (1982).   In the face of  clear precedent, the district  court                                        ____________________               3PR-DOJ's  lament that it was  lulled into a  false sense of          security  by a  stay granted  earlier in  the proceedings  by the          bankruptcy  court holds little water.   Given the  record in this          case, no  reasonable lawyer would  have concluded  that the  stay          endured  after  the district  court  withdrew  the reference  and          assumed jurisdiction.                                          5          acted appropriately in noticing  the acquittals and striking down          the seizures.                    We need go no further.  Concluding, as  we do, that the          instant appeal is entirely without merit, we summarily affirm.          Affirmed.          Affirmed.          ________                                          6
