[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
Nos. 93-1226
93-1636
DAVID LOFFREDO,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Circuit Judge,
Rosenn,* Senior Circuit Judge,
and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
Stephen J. Fortunato, Jr. with whom Fortunato & Tarro was on
brief for appellant.
John M. Boland with whom Boyer, Reynolds & DeMarco, Ltd. was on
brief for appellee.
*Of the Third Circuit, sitting by designation
Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the record
in this case and are of the opinion that the contested
district court findings -- i.e., (1) that defendant easily
met its burden of demonstrating that plaintiff had made
material misrepresentations during the course of defendant's
investigation of the fire underlying this litigation; and (2)
that defendant easily met its burden of demonstrating that
plaintiff had engaged in fraudulent conduct relating to the
fire -- are amply supported. Thus, because each such finding
relieved defendant of liability under the fire insurance
policy issued by defendant to plaintiff, the court did not
err in entering judgment in favor of defendant on all counts
set forth in plaintiff's complaint.
Furthermore, we agree with the district court that
this case is one of those very rare instances where a shift
in attorneys' fees pursuant to the inherent authority of the
district court, see Jones v. Winnepesaukee Realty, 990 F.2d
1, 4 (1st Cir. 1993) ("It is beyond serious dispute that a
federal court possesses inherent power to shift attorneys'
fees when parties conduct litigation in bad faith."), is
appropriate.1 The record is replete with evidence that
plaintiff and several of his witnesses, both prior to trial
1. Because we find the court's fee-shifting sanction to be
appropriate in both substance and amount pursuant to the
court's inherent authority, we need not and do not decide
whether the sanction also was authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P.
11.
-2-
2
and at the trial itself, gave untruthful testimony relating
to plaintiff's actions on the weekend of the fire. This
testimony alone, in the context of this case, is sufficient
to support the sanction imposed. Therefore, the court did
not err in granting defendant's motion for sanctions against
plaintiff.
Finally, we agree with the district court in its
characterization of this litigation by plaintiff as truly
deplorable.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the challenged
orders of the district court. See First Circuit Rule 27.1.
Affirmed.
-3-
3