USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
_________________________
No. 96-1729
JESUS RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
IBERIA LINEAS AEREAS DE ESPANA,
Defendant, Appellee.
_________________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
_________________________
Before
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges, ______________
and Woodlock,* District Judge. ______________
__________________________
Alberto Acevedo Colom on brief for appellant. _____________________
James D. Noel, III and McConnell Valdes on brief for _____________________ _________________
appellee.
__________________________
December 9, 1996
__________________________
______________
*Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.
Per Curiam. This appeal stems from a suit alleging Per Curiam. ___________
failure to pay proper overtime and other extraordinary
compensation in violation of both federal statutes and local law.
The plaintiff, Jesus Rafael Rodriguez Rodriguez (Rodriguez),
alleges that his former employer, Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana
(Iberia), a commercial passenger airline, underpaid him during a
portion of the period in which he served as its traffic manger at
the Luis Munoz Marin International Airport in Carolina, Puerto
Rico. Iberia defended on the ground that the plaintiff's
position was "administrative" and-or "executive" in nature, and
therefore exempt from the statutory sweep.
The district court conducted a three-day bench trial
concerning Rodriguez's allegations. The court thereafter wrote a
carefully reasoned opinion in which it concluded that Iberia had
carried the devoir of persuasion in regard to the applicability
of the cited exemptions. See Rodriguez v. Iberia, 923 F. Supp. ___ _________ ______
304 (D.P.R. 1996). The court thereupon dismissed the complaint
with prejudice and entered judgment for the defendant. Rodriguez
appeals.
Having read the entire record and carefully considered
the parties' briefs, we find no basis to disturb the district
court's decision. Moreover, we have determined that oral
argument of this appeal would not advance the decisional process.
In the final analysis, we regard this as a suitable case in which
to act upon our previously stated belief that when "a trial court
has produced a first-rate work product, a reviewing tribunal
2
should hesitate to wax longiloquent simply to hear its own words
resonate." In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig., 989 _______________________________________________
F.2d 36, 38 (1st Cir. 1993). Consequently, we affirm the
judgment for substantially the reasons elucidated in the opinion
below. We add only a brief comment.
Rodriguez rehashes the evidence and essentially asks
that we reweigh the facts de novo. Our proper office, however,
is much more circumscribed. Following a bench trial, an
appellate court is not warranted in rejecting the trial judge's
"findings of fact or conclusions drawn therefrom unless, on the
whole of the record, [the court of appeals] form[s] a strong,
unyielding belief that a mistake has been made." Cumpiano v. ________
Banco Santander P.R., 902 F.2d 148, 152 (1st Cir. 1990); see also ____________________ ___ ____
Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). Contrary to Rodriguez's suggestion, this
paradigm applies full force to findings of fact concerning the
significance (or lack of significance) of documentary evidence.
See Reliance Steel Prods. Co. v. National Fire Ins. Co., 880 F.2d ___ _________________________ ______________________
575, 576 (1st Cir. 1989); RCI Northeast Servs. Div. v. Boston __________________________ ______
Edison Co., 822 F.2d 199, 202-03 (1st Cir. 1987). __________
The clearly erroneous standard of review is
determinative of the outcome here. The record, read objectively,
does not yield a conviction that a mistake has been made. Thus,
clear error is clearly absent.
This does not mean, of course, that the case was open
and shut at the district court level. But once the trier found ___________________________
the facts, the dynamics changed. Where, as here, the trial court
3
has indulged no error of law and its conclusions following a
jury-waived trial are dependent upon its choices among
conflicting facts and its elections as to which inferences to
draw from the facts as found, appellate tribunals are not at
liberty to meddle. See Foster v. Dalton, 71 F.3d 52, 55 (1st ___ ______ ______
Cir. 1995); Irons v. FBI, 811 F.2d 681, 684 (1st Cir. 1987). Nor _____ ___
do the appellant's criticisms of certain testimony suffice to tip
the balance; credibility calls are for the district court, not
for the court of appeals. See Anthony v. Sundlun, 952 F.2d 603, ___ _______ _______
606 (1st Cir. 1991).
We need go no further. The judgment of the district
court is summarily affirmed. See 1st Cir. R.27.1. ___
Affirmed. Affirmed. ________
4