*1 5 Indeed, Supreme Court has noted that Lydia Zaida CHOUDENS, al., De et Plaintiffs, Appellees, prosecutes who or defends a suit in
[0]ne the name of another to establish and protect right, his own or who assists The GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT prosecution or defense anof action in RICO, BANK al., OF PUERTO et of some aid his own ... is as Defendants, Appellants. bound much ... as he would ifbe he had No. 86-1059. party a the record. Id., quoting v. La Compagnie Souffront United States Court Appeals, Sucreries, 475, 486-87, Des First Circuit. 608, 612, (1910); S.Ct. L.Ed. 846 also see Sept. 19, 1986. General Foods v. Depart- Massachusetts Health, ment Public As Sept. 24, Amended (1st Cir.1981)(judgment will bind non-par- ty if “power he had the to determine what arguments
evidence and should be offered litigation”). Fredella,
Danin and as Mohawk’s
only shareholders, officers, and members directors,
of the board of clearly aspects
notice of all litiga Union’s
tion with They Mohawk. held ultimate and
complete litigation control over the strate
gy the now corporation pursued. defunct
It had been Danin himself negoti who had agreement
ated the calling Local 226
for Mohawk to contribute to the union ben
efit funds. As Mohawk, sole owners of men
both had an economic stake in the were,
outcome of the course, trial and to know everything about Given, moreover,
occurred. questiona
ble nature of corporate Mohawk’s identity,
Danin and good had Fredella reason to
anticipate they might personal be held
ly accountable for Mohawk’s defaults.
Hence, they every reason to consider own devising
their when interests Mo Similarly,
hawk’s defense. because Vi-Mil single,
and Mohawk were integrated en
terprise, controlled people, the same Vi-
byMil definition had an obvious role and litigation. facts,
stake On these
reject appellants’ assertion that their due
process rights are being violated responsible
held judgment against
Mohawk.
Affirmed.
6 concluding that the
injunction, housing agen- (regional director of a issue where, in- one cy) resembled confidential, and policymaking, volved respon- area in an spokesperson functions goals, politi- governmental party’s sive to a require- appropriate an affiliation was cal case, the district In this we affirm ment. preliminary injunction grant of a court’s Rico, Santurce, Puerto Angel Rey, Jose because, in- although position at issue defendants, whom Sal- with appellants, for reposing confi- policymaking, volves Alvarado, Hector Hon. dana, Moran & Rey, dence, communicating, presently we Justice, and Ra- Cruz, Secretary of Rivera so remote that such functions are conclude Gen., Carrion, on brief. Sol. fael Ortiz agency’s advancing thwarting the from Nachman, Santurce, Puerto Harvey B. political af- goals that partisan-responsive whom Rico, appellees, plaintiffs, for appro- not be considered an filiation would & Fernandez-Sein of Nachman Law Offices requirement. priate was on brief. CAMPBELL, Judge, Before Chief COF- I.
FIN, BOWNES,
BREYER
TORRUEL-
Plaintiff
served
the Puerto Rico
LA,
Judges.
Circuit
(Bank)
Development
Government
for
twenty years.
posi-
over
She rose from the
COFFIN,
Judge.
Circuit
through eight
tion of accountant
career-lev-
Plaintiff-appellee
Lydia
Zaida
De Choud-
el positions to Senior Vice President of the
claims she
her
ens
was demoted from
Finance Area.
was one
She
of the three
government position on the basis of her
presidents, serving
vice
under the Presi-
political affiliation in violation of her first
dent and Executive Vice President. After
Finkel,
See Branti v.
rights.
amendment
power
the new administration
assumed
1287,
507, 100S.Ct.
445 U.S.
1985,
January
defendant-appellant Jose Ra-
Burns,
(1980);
Elrod v.
Oyóla2
appointed president
mon
was
of the
In this
L.Ed.2d 547
S.Ct.
April
Oyóla
plain-
Bank.
In
notified
Fuentes v. Tor
Jimenez
companion case to
being “separated”
tiff that she was
from
Gaztambide,
ments as
outcomes,
to
id. at 4.
ground
A third
alleged
delinquence in failing
supply enough
ac-
A.
counting personnel
to service
high-risk
The first
issue is whether
the dis
loan program.
But
evidence
trict court abused its
ruling,
discretion in
plaintiff
showed that
recognized
prob-
pursuant
Healthy City
Mt.
School Dis
lem and obtained temporary
help.
outside
trict Board
Doyle,
Education v.
Oyola’s fourth and final reason for demot-
568, 50
274,
(1974),
U.S.
L.Ed.2d 471
ing plaintiff was that she had
put
failed to
they
that defendants
to show that
failed
operation
into
computerized
loan-adminis-
plaintiff
have
would
demoted
notwithstand
system.
tration
Although the needed soft-
Rosaly
affiliation. See
ing
her
ware had
acquired
been
use,
but was
in
not
(1st Cir.1979).
Ignacio,
the court found
employees
in a divi-
appeal
uphill
Defendants on
face an
task
sion
plaintiff’s
outside the
yet
area had not
Oyóla,
because their sole witness was
developed the
technique
files or
to use it.
president
PPD
new
of the Bank.
they
documentary
introduced much
evi
In addition to considering the conflicting
dence,
Healthy
Mt.
their
defense rested
evidence and
relating
inferences
to the four
upon Oyola’s credibility.
proffered reasons for demoting plaintiff,
Oyóla stated that
plaintiff
he demoted
the district court was entitled to take into
because he
incompetent,
deemed her
pro-
account
following
circumstances.
viding four
reasons
for his conclusion.
Shortly
Oyóla
office,
after
took
the new
First,
“very
she had
relations
bad”
with the
Secretary of Justice asked to see all files of
personnel
supervised,
she
based on com-
employees
positions
confidence,
in
in-
ments
made
union
Oyóla
officials. But
plaintiff’s.3
cluding
Subsequently,
the Sec-
spoke of these comments in conclusory
retary reported his belief that all
in-
terms, and did not know the eventual out-
positions
confidence,
deed
removable at
come of
complaints against
In
her.
Notwithstanding
will.
report,
Oyóla
fact,
grievances
the few
carried to a conclu-
stated that he removed the three Senior
largely,
sion
if
completely,
vindicated Vice Presidents
their
incom-
plaintiff and the Bank. A union resolution
petence.
professed
He
not to know that
censoring plaintiff may well have arisen
they
Moreover,
were PNP members.
at no
from an
position
institutional
taken
during
time
the two
preceding
months
in
negotiations.
its labor
plaintiff’s
Oyóla
demotion did
talk with her
A
preferred
second
reason was inade-
supervisors
or her
about
work or its
quate internal
stamp
controls
the food
shortcomings.
division,
possible
which made
a substantial
short,
stamps by
theft of food
In
employees
several
we cannot fault
the court for
finding Oyóla
who were later convicted. While
not credible.
some au-
And the vari-
reports
dit
were critical of
ous documents are
compel-
various Bank
not so clear and
procedures,
followed,
ling
independently
commendations later
as
to make the case
and it was
apparently
against plaintiff.
herself who
We therefore find that
instituted the lengthy investigation that
the district court did not abuse its discre-
3. Plaintiffs
seq.
confidential
Act of
3 L.P.R.A. § 1301 et
under the
Fuentes,
Puerto Rico Public Service Personnel
See
nearly
four
As of
the Bank
finding
plaintiff would not have
tion
assets,
and some three
for” her
affil- billion dollars
demoted “but
primary
employees.
Its three
hundred
iation.
agent and financial
functions are: fiscal
B.
and its Gov-
advisor
Commonwealth
remaining
basis
Defendants’
ernor,
municipalities,
pub-
agencies,
its
and
argument
appeal is their
on this
prevailing
and
corporations;
lic
lender
its discretion
the district court abused
depository
and
of Com-
private industry;
to meet
failed
holding that defendants
Re-
funds. The Bank’s Annual
monwealth
Branti,
Elrod burden,
under
“Group,” including its
port spoke of its
ap
is an
political affiliation
showing that
affiliates,
providing
as
subsidiaries
for the
requirement
propriate
“leadership
promoting
renewed economic
again
recite
our obser
Rather than
issue.
“multifaceted, yet coordinated
growth”; a
authorities and
to the relevant
vations
which, during fis-
approach
development,
analysis, we
resulting guidelines of
*4
commercial,
1984, emphasized
industri-
cal
case,
companion
in the
rely
opinion
on our
tourism,
al, agroindustrial,
and human re-
find, however,
doWe
Jimenez Fuentes.
allocations
development”;
source
increased
repeating:
proposition
one
worth
encourage
investment in
of loans to
new
derives from
inquiry,
“A
which
threshold
hotels,
spur agricultural exports and
Finkle,
Branti v.
the
manufacturing; and a redirection of
(1980),
involves ex-
to serve
Development
Rico
Fund
Puerto
aming whether
issue,
the
no
representing the
Oyóla,
small business.
matter how policy-influencing or confi-
administration,
he had
testified that
new
be,
may
dential it
‘partisan
relates to
po-
policy direction
given “a clear
...
interests_
litical
concerns.’ 445
[or]
the
Development Bank out of
create a
is,
U.S. at
following when occasions right po- weigh informed her of First Amendment President when the ident: no she made position; when affiliation.” the Bank’s litical budget decision; the she commenced when on the evidence juncture, At this based Board of Directors be- presentation court, we cannot find the district before late; when she the President cause recognize the any of discretion. We abuse to the Board for reason gave a technical involving the of a case closeness disbursement;4 and when holding up a loan in a top policymaking official firing of a calling the only after President acted she may any be that in agency. It well public for instructions. injunc- permanent on a proceedings further of demon- carry their burden In order to be drawn be- a sufficient nexus will tion nature of strating politically-sensitive the issue and the kind of tween the issue, relied on defendants the At relating concerns. policy person identify where and how Oyóla to moment, however, fault the we cannot might help hinder plaintiff’s seeing for not it. district court leadership’s strate- pursuit of the pre- The district court’s issuance of that the Finance Area gic goals. He stated liminary injunction is affirmed. important of the Bank’s three the most the Bank for the “internal work” of areas (concur- work.” He proper TORRUELLA, “the flow of Judge
to ensure
Circuit
“to have the
important
it was
added that
ring).
accounting system
same views of what
Although agree
I
with the conclusion
Oyóla admit
only did
be....” Not
should
it relies on
appeal, to the extent that
plaintiff’s ideas
he did not know what
en banc
opinion
issued
reasoning
matters,
clear to
but it seems
were on such
today in Jiménez
Fuentes
Torres
may
broadly “partisan”
be
us that however
Gatzambide,
(1st
1986),
“The area which part of the insti- precisely
rected is safeguarding its
tution entrusted with sense of the operations
bank the strict essentially a Area is
word. The Finance accounting services and tech-
provider of
nical, give other financial information necessary input to Bank the
areas of the charac-
make their decisions. Whatever former
teristics of to a arguably
could be related are so insubstantial in the context of
when considered not discern the Board's presentation bank. Plaintiff could background was that The of this go “had to back to passed from the minutes and two or three intent the Board of Directors had This indicates to us question. and ask them.” regarding loan in the board resolutions arisen, policymaking of the Board status the dominant and was Technical difficulties purely technical approving and the loans clear to take a second- that the Board wished mortgage role of to a subordinate