Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 15-9010
IN RE: MARCELO JUNIOR MEDINA LORENZO, a/k/a Marcelo J. Medina
Lorenzo, a/k/a Marcelo J. Medina-Lorenzo, a/k/a Marcelo J.
Medina, a/k/a Marcelo Medina Lorenzo, a/k/a Marcelo Medina,
a/k/a Marcelo Junior Medina,
Debtor.
SCOTIABANK DE PUERTO RICO,
Appellant,
v.
MARCELO JUNIOR MEDINA LORENZO,
Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Before
Torruella, Lynch, and Thompson,
Circuit Judges.
Wallace Vazquez Sanabria and WVS Law LLC on brief for
appellant.
Aileen Pérez Polanco and Valcárcel Bauzá & Pérez Polanco CRL
on brief for appellee.
April 1, 2016
Per curiam. This appeal arises out of the failure of
creditor Scotiabank, which had objected to the debtor's Chapter 13
bankruptcy plan, to attend the debtor's plan confirmation hearing,
of which it had notice. Scotiabank raises three arguments on
appeal: that the bankruptcy court erred in (1) hearing the debtor's
objection to the creditor's claim at the plan confirmation hearing;
(2) confirming the plan; and (3) granting the debtor's objection
and denying the creditor's amended claim.
The Puerto Rico local rules provide that "[a]ny creditor
who objects to confirmation of the plan shall attend the contested
confirmation hearing if the objection is not resolved or withdrawn
prior to the hearing," and "[i]f the objecting creditor does not
appear at the contested confirmation hearing, the court may
overrule the objection for failure to prosecute the same." P.R.
LBR 3015-2(h)(2). Scotiabank concedes that it did not attend the
hearing because it "erroneous[ly] concluded [its] appearance was
not needed."
Scotiabank's remaining merits arguments fail for the
reasons so well described in the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's
thoughtful opinion in this matter. In re Lorenzo, No. PR 15-011,
2015 WL 4537792 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. July 24, 2015). We agree with
that opinion's reasoning and summarily affirm. See 1st Cir. R.
27.0(c).
- 3 -
That does not end the matter. The debtor's brief asks
for sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 and
First Circuit Local Rule 38.0, saying "the present appeal filed by
Scotiabank is frivolous and ha[s] been used by Scotiabank as means
to exhaust Debtor's limited financial resources."
Rule 38 provides that a court of appeals may award
sanctions if it "determines that an appeal is frivolous." Fed. R.
App. P. 38; see 1st Cir. R. 38.0. The standard for the award of
Rule 38 sanctions is tough. "An appeal is frivolous if the
arguments in support of it are wholly insubstantial and the outcome
is obvious from the start." In re Efron, 746 F.3d 30, 37 (1st
Cir. 2014). Sanctions are appropriate if "the appellants and their
attorney should have been aware that the appeal had no chance of
success." Cronin v. Town of Amesbury, 81 F.3d 257, 261 (1st Cir.
1996) (per curiam) (quoting E.H. Ashley & Co. v. Wells Fargo Alarm
Servs., 907 F.2d 1274, 1280 (1st Cir. 1990)).
We deny the request for sanctions but warn Scotiabank
and its counsel that some of its arguments are frivolous, that all
are without merit, and that its brief to this Court is
unacceptable.
So ordered.
- 4 -