April 22, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 95-1866
AGAPITA ROSA VELAZQUEZ, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
EDNA J. FIGUEROA-GOMEZ, ANGEL ROSA,
JAIME TORRENS AND THE MUNICIPALITY OF LUQUILLO,
Defendants - Appellants.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Gilberto Gierbolini, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
Claudio Aliff-Ortiz, with whom Eliezer Aldarondo-Ortiz,
Isabel L pez-Bras and Aldarondo & Lopez Bras were on brief for
appellants.
Juan B. Soto-Balbas, with whom Adrian Mercado and Mercado &
Soto were on brief for appellees.
Per Curiam. This appeal stems from a political
Per Curiam.
discrimination case brought, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, by
Plaintiffs-Appellees, Agapita Rosa Vel zquez, et al., former
employees of the Municipal Government of Luquillo, Puerto Rico,
against Defendants-Appellants, Edna J. Figueroa-G mez, et al.,
the Municipal Government of Luquillo and several of its
officials. A jury verdict found that Defendants-Appellants
discriminated against thirty-eight of the former employees in
violation of the First Amendment based on their political
affiliation and awarded damages in favor of twenty-seven of them.
In an earlier episode, we affirmed the finding of political
discrimination and the damage award. See Agapita Rosa Vel zquez,
et al. v. Figueroa-G mez et al., 996 F.2d 425 (1st Cir. 1993)
(affirming also the district court's denial of employees'
reinstatement).
Defendants-Appellants now appeal the district court's
June 6, 1995, order denying their motion for a reduction in the
attorney's fees awarded to Plaintiffs-Appellees as the
"prevailing party" under 42 U.S.C. 1988 as well as its June 9,
1995, order of execution. Upon careful review of the record, we
affirm, on the basis of the district court's opinion, each matter
raised on appeal. The district court applied the correct legal
standards and did not abuse its discretion in denying the request
that the attorney's fees be further reduced. Because we find
this to be a frivolous appeal, see E.H. Ashley & Co. v. Wells
Fargo Alarm Servs., 907 F.2d 1274, 1280 (lst Cir. l990) ("[I]t is
enough that the appellants and their attorney should have been
aware that the appeal had no chance of success."); Natasha Inc.
-2-
v. Evita Marine Charters, Inc., 763 F.2d 468, 472 (1st Cir. 1985)
("'An appeal is frivolous when the result is obvious, or the
arguments are "wholly without merit."'" (quoting NLRB v. Catalina
Yachts, 679 F.2d 180, 182 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted)),
Defendants-Appellants are directed to show cause, within ten days
from the issuance of this opinion, why we should not award double
costs and attorney's fees in the amount of $3,500 to Plaintiffs-
Appellees pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure. See 28 U.S.C. 1912 (1994) (authorizing award of
"just damages for [prevailing party's] delay, and single or
double costs"); Fed. R. App. P. 38 (authorizing award of "just
damages and single or double costs" if appeal is "frivolous" and
"after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and
reasonable opportunity to respond"); see also Roadway Express,
Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764-67 (1980); Cronin v. Town of
Amesbury, --- F.3d ---, ---, No. 95-1957, slip. op. at 7-10 (1st
Cir. April 16, 1996).
The judgment below is affirmed.
affirmed
-3-