Loffredo v. Nationwide

USCA1 Opinion









[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
United States Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
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