
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                              _________________________          No. 97-1082                          LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,                                          v.                            CATERINA A. ROSENTHAL, ET AL.,                               Defendants, Appellants.                             ___________________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                    [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                             ___________________________                                        Before                                Selya, Circuit Judge,                                       _____________                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,                                   ____________________                            and Lagueux*, District Judge.                                          ______________                             ___________________________               Evan  T. Lawson,  with whom  J. Mark  Dickison and  Lawson &               _______________              _________________      ________          Weitzen, LLP were on brief, for appellants.          ____________               Michael J. Keefe,  with whom James E.  Harvey, Jr., O'Malley               ________________             _____________________  ________          and Harvey, Kenneth A. Latronico, and Latronico & Whitestone were          __________  ____________________      ______________________          on brief, for appellee.                              _________________________                                    July 18, 1997                              _________________________          _______________          *Of the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.                    Per Curiam.  We have reviewed the record on appeal with                    Per Curiam.                    __________          care,  read the parties'  briefs, and entertained  oral argument.          We find that the district court's order granting equitable relief          pendente lite is grounded on substantial evidence  in the record,          ________ ____          meets  the requirements  we have  laid down  for the  granting of          preliminary  injunctive  relief, see,  e.g.,  Narragansett Indian                                           ___   ____   ___________________          Tribe v. Guilbert,  934 F.2d 4, 5  (1st Cir. 1991), and  does not          _____    ________          appear  to  represent  an unreasonable  application  of pertinent          legal principles.   Consequently, we summarily affirm  the order.          The  appellants may,  of course,  raise their  factual and  legal          arguments anew at the trial on the merits.                    Affirmed.                    Affirmed.                    ________                                          2
