Alejandro-Martinez v. Ortiz-Vazquez

Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit

No. 11-2334

ÁNGEL L. ALEJANDRO-MARTÍNEZ, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

ENG. JOSÉ F. ORTIZ-VÁZQUEZ, in his personal capacity and
as Director of Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority;
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP ORTIZ-DOE; COMPAÑÍA DE AGUAS
DE PUERTO RICO, INC.; CORPORACIÓN DEL FONDO DEL SEGURO
DEL ESTADO; INSURANCE COMPANIES ABC; INSURANCE COMPANIES XYZ;
JANE DOE; JANE POE; JANE ROE; JOHN DOE; MARY DOE;
ONDEO DE PUERTO RICO INC.; DRA. IRIS OTERO, in her personal
capacity and as the Medical Director of the CFSE; CONJUGAL
PARTNERSHIP DOE-OTERO; ENG. PABLO REYES-BONILLA, in his
personal capacity and as HOSOs Director Engineer; CONJUGAL
PARTNERSHIP REYES-POE; DR. ÁNGEL ROMÁN-FRANCO, in his personal
capacity and as an employee of CFSE; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP
ROMÁN-DOE; EUFEMIO TOUCET, in his personal capacity and as
Sub-Director of Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority;
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP TOUCET-ROE;
PUERTO RICO AQUEDUCT AND SEWER AUTHORITY,

Defendants, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Lynch, Chief Judge,
DiClerico, Jr.* and Torruella, Circuit Judges.

*
Of the District of New Hampshire, sitting by designation.
 Nicolás Nogueras-Cartagena and Nogueras Law & Associates, on
brief for appellants.
Marta L. Rivera-Ruiz, James W. McCartney, and Cancio, Nadal,
Rivera & Díaz, P.S.C., on brief for appellees Puerto Rico
Aqueduct and Sewage Authority, José F. Ortiz-Vázquez, Eng. Pablo
Reyes-Bonilla, and Eufemio Toucet.
Carlos José Onetti-Irizarry and Carlos José Onetti Irizarry
Law Offices, on brief for appellee Compañía de Aguas de Puerto
Rico, Inc.
Ángel E. Rotger-Sabat and Maymí, Rivera & Rotger, P.S.C., on
brief for appellees Corporación del Fondo del Seguro del Estado
and Dra. Iris Otero.
Eric Pérez-Ochoa, Katarina Stipec-Rubio and Adsuar Muñiz
Goyco Seda & Pérez-Ochoa, P.S.C., on brief for appellee Ondeo de
Puerto Rico, Inc.
Luis R. Ramos-Cartagena and González Castañer & Morales
Cordero, CSP, on brief for appellee Dr. Ángel Román-Franco.

December 10, 2012

-2-
 Per Curiam. As we too often have to reiterate, litigants

in this Circuit should not seriously expect to obtain a remedy

without doing the necessary leg work first. See, e.g., Rodríguez-

Machado v. Shinseki, No. 12-1430, 2012 WL 5871052 (1st Cir.

Nov. 21, 2012); see also United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17

(1st Cir. 1990)("It is not enough to mention a possible argument in

the most skeletal way, leaving the court to do counsel's work,

create the ossature for the argument, and put flesh on its

bones."). In this case, that warning has unfortunately fallen on

deaf ears.

Appellants come before us charging the district court

with error in dismissing their complaint for failure to state a

claim.2 They, however, rest their case entirely on two

perfunctory, undeveloped, and unsupported arguments:

The facts presented in the complaint
and restated in many of the Motions by
plaintiffs, far from being rambling
allegations, as they were describe [sic] by
the District Court in their [sic] Statement of
Reasons, the facts alleged in the complaint
bring forward more than just a plausible case.
They bestow upon the court a detailed
description of the conspiracy to promote a
pattern of racketeering, and as proof of the
factual matter alleged, presented the
testimony of Mr. Cora, who was not only
present during the meetings in which the

2
Appellants' complaint raised claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the
Federal Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq.; and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18
U.S.C. §§ 1961-1969. Appellants' brief only challenges the
dismissal of the RICO claims.

-3-
 conspiracy was concocted, but who was also
pressured into supervising the conspiracy and
working as a liaison between the Co-
defendant[s] . . . .

****

Even though the present claim allege
[sic] a violation of the RICO Act, which would
require some sort of factual allegation
regarding concerted actions between the co-
defendants, it does not mean that the
promoting party has to prove without any
reasonable doubt that the existence of a plan,
once again it's a matter of alleging a
plausible case.

Appellants' Br. at 17-18, 21.

In other words, nowhere in their 22-page submission do

Appellants provide an specific and articulated argument as to how

or where the district court went wrong -- the brief neither

mentions a single factual allegation improperly disregarded or a

single inference improperly made. Worse yet, the brief fails to

(1) address any of the grounds upon which the district court

dismissed the case; and (2) advance any case law that supports

Appellants' RICO claims.

For the foregoing reasons, we are in no position to

entertain this appeal and hereby dismiss it with prejudice. See In

re Simply Media, Inc., 566 F.3d 234, 236 (1st Cir. 2009).

Additionally, Appellants' counsel is ordered to show

cause by written response within the next fourteen (14) days as to

why the court should not order payment by him of attorney's fees

and double costs for needlessly consuming the time of the court and

-4-
opposing counsel. See In re Simply Media, 566 F.3d at 236; see

also Fed. R. App. P. 38; 1st Cir. R. 38.

So Ordered.

-5-