USCA1 Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________

No. 96-1940

HIDEKO T. WORCESTER AND CHARLES E. WORCESTER,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

FILENE'S BASEMENT, CORPORATION, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. George A. O'Toole, Jr., U.S. District Judge]

___________________

____________________

Before

Selya, Boudin and Stahl,

Circuit Judges.
______________

____________________

Hideko T. Worcester and Charles E. Worcester on brief pro se.

___________________
____________________
Joseph P. Musacchio
_____________________
appellees

and Melick & Porter, LLP

_______________________

Filene's Basement Corporation,

on

brief

Howard Nyman, Ray McCart

Colleen Fitzpatrick, Maureen Supple, and Retail Enterprises, Inc.

Merita A. Hopkins and Robert J. Boyle, Jr. on
_________________
____________________

brief for appell

Francis M. Roache, Ralph Caulfield, and Leo Coogan.

____________________

September 5, 1997
____________________

Per
Curiam.
____________

Appellants

Hideko

and

Charles

Worcester appeal from the amount

and from

trial.

two orders of

For

of damages the jury awarded

the district court entered

the following reasons, we

prior to

find that appellants'

contentions lack merit.

1.

review

Damages.
_______

party's

First,

contention

"[w]e

that

the

generally

damages

will not

award

is

excessive or insufficient where the party has failed to allow

the

district court

Huard, 117 F.3d

_____

that

on

the matter."

12, 18 (1st Cir. 1997).

the district

opportunity.

to rule

In

court

was never

any event,

the

O'Connor
________

v.

The record reflects

provided

with such

only evidence

an

appellants

present in support of their

claim that the damages award was

too

Of course,

low is new

evidence.

this court

does not

consider

court.

arguments or evidence not presented to the district

Matthews v.
________

Marsh, 755 F.2d

_____

182, 183-84

(1st Cir.

1985).

2.

Joseph Doe's Dismissal.

_______________________

appellants really

court's

denial

Constine" for

amend

are

of

complaining

their

motion

"Joseph Doe,"

the complaint

review the denial

to

about

to

add an

is

what

district

substitute

"Robert

additional

of such a motion for

think that

the

which we treat

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Gold,

_______________________
____

1994).

We

as a

motion to

defendant.

We

abuse of discretion.

30 F.3d 251, 253

(1st Cir.

"[U]nseemly delay, in combination with other factors,

-2-

may warrant denial

of a suggested amendment."

Quaker State
____________

Oil Refining Corp. v. Garrity Oil Co., 884 F.2d

___________________
________________

1510, 1517

(1st Cir. 1989).

Here,

complaint

appellants

waited

for about one year after

involved in Hideko's

to

move

to

amend

the

the other police officer

arrest had been identified.

In such a

situation, "the movant[s]

______

valid reason for

ha[ve] the burden of

[their] neglect and delay."

showing some

Grant v. News
_____
____

Group Boston, Inc., 55 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 1995).

__________________

do

not present

such reasons.

appellants allege

that the

contributed to the

First, to

actions of

delay in moving

appellants

are

bound by

the

attorneys.

United States v.
_____________

acts

Appellants

the extent

their prior

to amend the

that

counsel

complaint,

or omissions

of

their

One Lot of $25,721 in Currency,

______________________________

938 F.2d 1417, 1422 (1st Cir. 1991).

Second,

withdrew,

the

record

it was appellants'

further

delay.

reason.

See
___

reveals

after

own inaction which

Such inaction

Hayes v.
_____

that

cannot

counsel

caused the

constitute

a valid

New England Millwork Distributors,

____________________________________

Inc.,
____

602 F.2d

think

that both

have been

late

Cir. 1979).

the court and

prejudiced by the

in the

reopened.

15, 20 (1st

case because

the police

In any

defendants would

addition of a new

discovery

See Grant, 55 F.3d at 5-6.

___ _____

-3-

event, we

would have

defendant so

had to

be

3.

Judgment.
________

Motion of Francis M. Roache for Summary

_____________________________________________

The district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying appellants' request for more time in which to conduct

the discovery

record

necessary to

reveals that

existed

for such

prior

cause" for

earlier).

despite

to the

discovery.

Corp., 931 F.2d 162, 164

_____

"good

oppose this

motion because

motion,

See Price
___ _____

v.

ample time

Further, "[a]

to

court may

had

General Motors
______________

(1st Cir. 1991) (a party

the failure

the

have conducted

grant summary

must show

discovery

judgment

an opposing party's claim that discovery would yield

additional facts

where the

opposing party

has not

alleged

specific

facts

discovery."

1984).

that

could

be

developed

through

such

Taylor v. Gallagher, 737 F,2d 134, 137 (1st Cir.

______
_________

Appellants alleged no such facts here.

We

have

arguments and can

the district court.

reviewed

the

remainder

find no reason to disturb

Affirmed.
________

of

appellants'

the judgment of

-4-