-
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 98-1145 DAVID S. PORTER, CAROL ANN PORTER AND SONS REALTY TRUST, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. METROWEST BANK, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge] Before Torruella, Chief Judge, Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges. David S. Porter and Carol A. Porter on brief pro se. Kevin Hern, Jr., Craig J. Ziady, Riemer & Braunstein, Daniel L. Goldgerg, S. Elaine McChesney, and Bingham Dana LLP on brief for appellees. November 3, 1998 Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. Appellants David S. Porter and his wife, Carol A. Porter, have appealed a district court "Order of Closure" which, in effect, is an order of abstention pending final resolution of related state court litigation. The Porters have filed this appeal despite Mr. Porter's statement at the district court hearing that they did not oppose deferring this federal action until after they have prevailed in their pending state court litigation. We have some concern about excusing the Porters from their inconsistent position. Cf. Patriot Cinemas, Inc. v. General Cinema Corp.,
834 F.2d 208, 211-15 (1st Cir. 1987) (applying the doctrine of "judicial estoppel" or "preclusion of inconsistent positions" to party that repudiated its prior representation in state court that it would not prosecute a state antitrust count). In any event, however, we conclude that there was no abuse of discretion in the decision to abstain in this case. See Elmendorf Grafica, Inc. v. D.S. Am. (E.), Inc.,
48 F.3d 46, 50 (1st Cir. 1995). There is no merit to the Porters' claim that the abstention order violates their First Amendment right to petition the courts. We also reject the Porters' claim, first raised in this appeal, that the district court was biased and had an apparent conflict of interest. Although the court was candid in its views of the Porters' extended litigation history and strategy, these views had support in the record and did not "display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible." Liteky v. United States,
510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). The allegation of an apparent conflict of interest borders on the frivolous and requires no further comment. Affirmed.
Document Info
Docket Number: 98-1145
Filed Date: 11/5/1998
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021