Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 94-1690
THOMAS TRUPIANO,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
CAPTAIN GUS & BROTHERS, INC.,
Defendant, Appellee.
_________________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Robert B. Collings, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
_____________________
_________________________
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
_____________
Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
_____________
_________________________
_________________________
Per Curiam.
Per Curiam.
__________
Following
maintenance and
& Bros.,
cure,1 Trupiano
appealed.
His appeal
whether the
Inc., liable
and attorneys'
Plaintiff,
of
course,
had
the
burden
of
proving
"callous,
willful,
or
recalcitrant
of the
given,
especially,
pertains,
the
evidence, given
withholding
conflicted nature
in
the gaps
up to the time of
deferential
standard
of
given
in the
trial, and
review
that
746, 749 (1st Cir. 1989) ("In maritime cases, we review factbound
findings
stemming
`clearly erroneous'
cannot
bench
principle of
trial in
Fed. R.
accordance
Civ. P.
with the
52(a)."), we
defendant's failure
cure,
from a
to make
though eventually
basis, did
timely payments of
adjudged to
be without
maintenance and
adequate legal
____________________
attorneys' fees.
clearly erroneous.
trier's choice
See Anderson
___ ________
v. City
____
152 (1st
Cir. 1990).
So it
is
here.
We need go no further.2
that
no substantial question
is presented" by
Affirmed.
Affirmed.
________
Costs to appellee.
____________________