May 12, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 93-2186
IN RE ULPIANO UNANUE-CASAL, a/k/a CHARLES UNANUE,
Debtor.
JOSEPH A. UNANUE, ET AL.,
Petitioners, Appellees,
v.
ULPIANO UNANUE-CASAL a/k/a
CHARLES UNANUE,
Respondent, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Gilberto Gierbolini, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
Coffin and Bownes, Senior Circuit Judges.
Jan Alan Brody, with whom Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan,
Cecchi, Stewart & Olstein, William Vidal-Carvajal, and Hernandez
& Vidal were on brief, for appellant.
Arturo J. Garcia-Sola, with whom Jose R. Gonzalez-Irizarry
and McConnell Valdes were on brief, for appellees Joseph A.
Unanue, Frank Unanue, and Goya Foods, Inc.
Michael R. Griffinger, with whom Crummy, Del Deo, Dolan,
Griffinger & Vecchione and Guillermo A. Nigaglioni were on brief,
for remaining appellees.
Per Curiam. This is the latest chapter in a dispute
Per Curiam.
that has been litigated with fierce tenacity by the debtor,
Ulpiano Unanue-Casal, a/k/a Charles Unanue. See, e.g., In re
Unanue-Casal, 998 F.2d 28 (1st Cir. 1993); Unanue-Casal v.
Unanue-Casal, 898 F.2d 839 (1st Cir. 1990). Although tenacity is
to be admired, it is sometimes misplaced. So it is here.
We have carefully reviewed the voluminous record and
the parties' briefs, and have duly considered the matters raised
at oral argument. In the end, we are persuaded that the district
court did not err in reversing the bankruptcy court's refusal to
lift the automatic stay, 11 U.S.C. 362. The district court's
well-conceived opinion, see In re Unanue Casal, Civ. No. 92-1796
GG (D.P.R. Aug. 3, 1993) (unpublished), adequately elucidates the
reasoning that is controlling on the central issue presented by
this appeal, and no useful purpose would be served by rehearsing
that reasoning. Similarly, we see no basis for a remand to the
bankruptcy court for further exploration of this issue. And,
finally, appellant's other arguments are mere makeweights.
We need go no further. Because this appeal presents no
substantial question of law or fact, we summarily affirm the
judgment below.1
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
1We take no view of appellees' claim that the appeal is
moot, as the appeal is impuissant in any event.
2