WPC ;i m=4+\ٱ/76Baܮ[P|th:'}vIYw[qtgbHj8jccik;\bGh9+ ;CHvo~"qmN83A񗀵( wJQe\+ #>@&{<'ۇj~hna ;0Tz{ Grs gy-5`#)+PiRODΖ r`!eY8Py"8Ohmp pEՌvJyFC\%Au>K<_9q/8¡ַ݈GHOu]mgsFz)6J ]0FH~n2ӉG5d ShYblu=up:)V"j):9H6LgLMg g'i5p.k3V(#0 % 0D 0GCU: 0U8nTN5 UN7 UF ; ^  w 4 * E9 f; a= Q mS 1j 72 1u# 72 N ^ UB*bl 0 ctt 1 72^^ 1 72IsQ BHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 5e,,,,0X(#$  0  ($XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(:2$$ !XAXXX    =AXdd=    0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularQ 9Z+.Courier New Regular 1 $$XGXXX  =GXdd=    *    _ ` Hon.BobbyR.Baldock,oftheTenthCircuit,sittingby  designation.3  ʑ26X?,}backup3|xTABLE A U(CEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A. A.(CEKQW]cioAutoList3A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.#A.  i $$XGXXX  =GXdd=    1    _ XGXXXGThehospitalalsofleetinglysuggeststhatplaintiffs'claims  werebarredbythestatuteoflimitations.Initsentirety,the  argument#XGXX XG# XGXXXGisthat"thedoctrineofstatutesoflimitation[and] \ laches...appliestothiscase."Thistypeof"shortform 2 argument[]"isan"invitation[]tothiscourttofillintheblanks X byitself,whichisnotourjob."Colon,398F.3dat6.#XGXX XG#ԀWe . declinetoaddresstheissue. d !XGXXX  _TRX3'X3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT ? * ! XXXXG !X X     UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals S !  FortheFirstCircuit  ` S XGX `  A') ` dE< ` A   Nos.042104 K  Ѐ  042105  ! q   @@ DR._PORFIRIO_Ԁ_FRANCESCHI_;ANGELACASTILLODE_FRANCHESCI_;CONJUGAL    PARTNERSHIP_FRANCESCHI_ԄCASTILLO,   @ Plaintiffs,Appellants/CrossAppellees, O  @tt)v. K    @@ HOSPITALGENERALSANCARLOS,INC.AND/ORHOSPITALSANCARLOS,  INC.D/B/AHOSPITALSANCARLOS_BORROMEO_, } @@*Defendant,Appellee/CrossAppellant. )y A') ` dE<` A % APPEALSFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT   FORTHEDISTRICTOFPUERTORICO@@dd  @@dd[Hon.JustoArenas,U.S.MagistrateJudge] < A') ` dE<` A 8 @@'Before  LynchandLipez,CircuitJudges, y! and@@((_Baldock_,  #  *      ׀SeniorCircuitJudge. O " A') ` dE<!` A !K$       Raul_Barrera_ԀMorales,withwhomHernandezSanchezLawFirmwas "0& onbrief,forappellant. #'   _Myrta_Ԁ_Estrella_Ԁ_Nieves_Ԁ_Blas_,withwhomSantos&_Nieves_Ԁ_Blas_was $( onbrief,forappellee. b% ) *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  '4#,'4#   SIH(#- `@38587`@S August24,2005 )n$/  RHC)D%0" `@38587 `@ R ," H(#1 ? ,* !  8GXXdd8*,X` XX* ` LIPEZ,CircuitJudge .AppellantDr._Porfirio_Ԁ_Franceschi_,  aphysician,hadacontractdisputewiththehospitalthatemployed x him.Thecontracthadanarbitrationclause,andtheparties $t attemptedtoselectanarbitralpanel.Forvariousreasons,the   arbitrationneverhappened.Instead,thedisputewaseventually |  triedtoajury,whichreturnedaverdictforDr._Franceschi_Ԁon ( x  bothcontractdamagesandcompensatorydamagesforemotional $  distress.Onthehospital'smotionfornewtrialorremittitur,   thecourtsubstantiallyreducedtheemotionaldamagesaward. ,|   ` Theappeal(byplaintiffs)andcrossappeal(bythe ( hospital)raiseabevyofissues:(1)whetherthecaseshouldhave  beendismissedinlightofthearbitrationclause,(2)whetherthe 0 suitwasuntimely,(3)whetherthecourterredinreducingthe , emotionaldamagesaward,(4)whetherthejury'seconomicdamages  awardwasexcessiveandshouldhavebeenreduced,and(5)whether 4 thejury'seconomicdamagesawardwastoolowandshouldhavebeen 0 increased.Weholdthatthehospitalforfeiteditsarbitration   argumentbyfailingtopursueaninterlocutoryappealwhenthat 8!" argumentwasfirstdeniedbythedistrictcourtinasummary "4$ judgmentruling.Theotherissuesalsoposenoobstaclesto $& affirmingthedistrictcourt. <&!(   &   I.  '8#*  ` Werecitethefactsinthelightmostfavorabletothe )%, jury'sverdict,UnitedStates' 'v._Castellini_,392F.3d35,39(1st \+&. _Cir.2004),andpresentonlythosefactsnecessarytothe  dispositionofthisappeal. \  ` Dr._Franceschi_,aradiologist,wasrecruitedfromthe X TexashospitalwhereheworkedtojoinHospitalSanCarlosin   PuertoRico.Hisemploymentcontractspecifiedhiscompensationas `  follows:  \  8 ` 1)"THEHOSPITAL"shallpay"THERADIOLOGIST"   aminimumguaranteeoftenthousanddollars   ($10,000.00)amonthwhichshallbepayableon d  thefirstofthefollowingmonth.: ` x` x 8 ` 2)Everythreemonthsthetotalamount `  collectedfortheproductionand 6 interpretationoftheradiologicalstudies   chargedby"THEHOSPITAL"shallbecomputed  andoftheamountinexcessoftheminimum h guarantee,"THERADIOLOGIST"shallbepaid35% > ofthenetprofitoftheDepartment.d` x` x  ` WhenDr._Franceschi_Ԁreceivedhisfirstpaycheck,itwas  muchsmallerthanheexpected.Hespoketothehospital'sdirector l offinancesanditsadministrator,eachofwhomexplainedthat h aftercalculatingthedepartment'snetincome,thehospitalthen  subtracted55%asaso-called"contractualadjustment."Each p  claimedthatsuchanadjustmentwascustomaryinPuertoRico.The !l" neteffectoftheadjustmentwastoreducethepiefromwhichDr. "$ _Franceschi_Ԁreceiveda35%slice. t$&  ` Dr._Franceschi_Ԁleftthehospitalwhenhiscontract  &p!( expiredinDecember1994.Aftersomepreliminaryskirmishingin '#* thePuertoRicocommonwealthcourt,thepartiesattemptedtopursue x)$, arbitrationasprovidedbytheemploymentcontract'sarbitration $+t&. clause.Effortsatarbitrationbeganinthefallof1996,but  seemedtofounderontheattempttoselectapanel.InJanuary \ 1998,Dr._Franceschi_'slawyersentalettertothehospitalsaying X that"beforeproceedingtoformalizethepanel,Ibelieveweshould   meet"todiscusssettlement.Apparentlynothinghappened,andDr. `  _Franceschi_Ԁeventuallyobtainednewcounsel.Inthespringof2000,  \  Dr._Franceschi_'scounselwrotetothehospitaltorevive   arbitrationtalks.Thehospitalrespondedthatitconsideredthe d  matterclosed. `   ` InSeptember2000,Dr._Franceschi_Ԁandhiswifefiledthis   lawsuitinfederalcourt.Shortlythereafter,thehospitalfiled h amotionforsummaryjudgmentonthegroundsthatthecontract d requiredarbitrationandthatthestatuteoflimitationshadrun.  InMarch2001,thedistrictcourtdeniedthemotion.First,it l foundthatthearbitrationclause,byitsterms,didnotapplyto h thisdispute.Second,itfoundthat,althoughthethreeyear  statuteoflimitationsranfromthedatethatDr._Franceschi_ p  renderedservices,theJanuary1998letterfromhisattorney !l" restartedthethree-yearperiodbecauseitdemonstratedthe "$ creditor'sintenttocollectthedebt. t$&  ` InApril2004,thecasewastriedtoajury.Atthe  &p!( closeofplaintiff'sevidence,thehospitalmovedforjudgmentas '#* amatteroflaw,whichthecourtdenied.Thehospitaldidnot x)$, renewitsmotionatthecloseofalltheevidence.Thenextday, $+t&. thejuryreturnedaverdictforthe_Franceschis_,awarding$152,792  forbreachofthecontract,plus$100,000eachtothedoctorand \ hiswifeformentalandemotionalanguish.Thehospitalthenfiled X amotionforjudgmentasamatteroflaw,whichthecourtdeniedas   procedurallybarred,andamotionforanewtrialor_remittitur_. `  Thecourtdeniedthemotionforanewtrial,butgrantedthemotion  \  for_remittitur_Ԁinpart.Afterfindingthattherewasnoevidence   oftheplaintiffs'extremementalanguish,thecourtreducedthose d  awardsto$5,000each. `   ` Plaintiffsappealthecontractdamagesaward,seeking   $225,784insteadofthe$152,792awarded.Plaintiffsalsoseekto h restoretheawardformentalanguishtothefull$200,000.The d hospitalcross-appealsthedamagesawards,maintainingthatitowes  Dr._Franceschi_Ԁonly$16,857andnothingformentalanguish.The l hospitalalsoappealsthecourt'sdenialofitsmotionforanew h trial,andarguesthatthedistrictcourterredindenyingits  motionforsummaryjudgmentonthegroundsofthestatuteof p  limitationsandthearbitrationclause. !l"   II. "$ .   ` Theissuespresentedarenotlegallycomplex,andwe $& disposeofthembriefly.Weaddresstheminapproximatelythe <&!(  orderinwhichtheyarose. '8#*  &    A.0 ` Arbitration   ` (#` (#    ` Atthesummaryjudgmentstage,thehospitalarguedthat x thecontractrequiredmandatory' /Ԁarbitrationofthecomplaint.The $t districtcourtrejectedthehospital'sargumentonthebasisofan   interpretationofthecontract.Morethanthreeyearselapsed |  betweenthedistrictcourt'sdenialofthehospital'smotionfor ( x  summaryjudgmentandthestartoftrial.Intheintervening $  period,thehospitaldidnothingtopressitsarbitrationclaim.   Inparticular,itdidnotfileaninterlocutoryappeal,whichthe ,|  FederalArbitrationActpermits.See9U.S.C.16(a)(1)(B). (  ` InColonv._R.K._ԀGrace&Co.,358F.3d1,4(1stCir.  2003),wesignaledthatwewouldlikelyadopttherulethatfailure 0 totakesuchanappealcouldforfeittherighttoarbitration: , 8 ` Nothinginthestatuterequiresanimmediate  appealbutthreecircuitshaveheldthatthe ^ failuretopromptlyappealsuchadenialmay 4 byestoppelforeclosethedemandingparty's  Z righttoarbitration,althoughthisisnot 0 automaticanddependsonashowingof  prejudicetotheotherside.Thereasonis   thatitiswastefultohaveafulltrialand b ! thendeterminebyapost-trialappealthatthe 8!" wholemattershouldhavebeenarbitratedand "^# sostartagain....Wearesympatheticto "4$ theapproachofthe[three]Circuits,andit # % iswiseforustomakethisclearbydictumso $& astogivewarningtothebar.f% '` x` x (Footnoteomitted).WedidnotformallyadoptthisruleinColon 'b") because"thedistrictjudgedidnotdefinitivelydenythe ($+ arbitrationrequestuntilafter...thetrialhadalready j*%- occurred."Id.Here,bycontrast,thedistrictcourtdefinitively ,f'/ deniedtherequestforarbitrationatthesummaryjudgmentstage,  threeyearsbeforetrialbegan,andthehospitalsatonits \ arbitrationrightthroughoutthatperiod. X  ` WenowholdwhatColonforewarned:failuretopromptly   appealadenialofarbitrationwill,ifprejudicialtotheopposing `  party,operatetoforfeitthedemandingparty'srightto  \  arbitration.Inthiscase,itwouldprejudiceplaintiffs"tohave   afulltrialandthendeterminebyapost-trialappealthatthe d  wholemattershouldhavebeenarbitratedandsostartagain."Id. `  Consequently,thehospitalhasforfeiteditsrighttoarbitration.& #  1          (83! ! "3"  3=2  B  .3  0 `   JudgmentasaMatterofLaw 3==݌h` (#` (# Ќ   ` Atthecloseofplaintiffs'case,thehospitalmovedfor 0 judgmentasamatteroflawonthegroundthattheplaintiffshad , notestablishedasufficientbasisuponwhichareasonablejury  couldfindintheirfavor.Thedistrictcourtdeniedthatmotion. 4  ` Thehospitaldidnot,however,renewthemotionatthe 0 closeofalltheevidence."Ifadefendantwishestorenewa   motionforjudgmentasamatteroflawatthepost-trialstage, 8!" withaviewtohavingdenialofthatmotionconsideredbythecourt "4$ ofappeals,thedefendantisrequiredtohavemovedforjudgmentas $& amatteroflawatthecloseofalltheevidence....Thiscourt  thereforehasheldthatitwillnotconsiderclaimsofinsufficient \ evidenceunlessthedistrictcourtwaspresentedwithamotionfor X judgmentasamatteroflawatthecloseofalltheevidence."   _Keisling_v._SER_-JobsforProgress,19F.3d755,758-759(1stCir. `  1994).Consequently,thisargumenthasbeenforfeited.  \   "3"  3C2  C  .3  0 `   EmotionalDamages 3CD݌ ` (#` (# Ќ   ` The_Franceschis_Ԁchallengethedistrictcourt'sreduction   ofthejury'sawardforemotionaldistressfrom$200,000to ,|  $10,000.Districtcourtsmaygrantamotionfornewtrialor ( remittituronlyiftheaward"exceedsanyrationalappraisalor  estimateofthedamagesthatcouldbebasedontheevidencebefore 0 thejury"andis"grosslyexcessive,inordinate,shockingtothe , conscienceofthecourt,orsohighthatitwouldbeadenialof  justicetopermitittostand."_Davignon_v._Clemmey_,322F.3d1, 4 12(1stCir.2003)(quotationmarksandcitationsomitted).We 0 reviewforabuseofdiscretion.Id.    ` Thiswasacommercialdisputearisingfromadisagreement 8!" abouttheinterpretationofthedefinitionofthephrase"net "4$ profits."Whiledisputeswithone'semployeroverthetermsof $& compensation,particularlyaftermovingagreatdistancetowork <&!( forthatemployer,areusuallyupsetting,theplaintiffspresented '8#* littleevidencesupportingtheclaimthatDr._Franceschi_Ԁorhis )$, wifehadsufferedextremementalanguish.The_Franceschis_Ԁpresent @+&. nothingintheirappellatebrieftodisturbthedistrictcourt's  conclusionthattheevidencedidnotsupportthejury'saward.We \ findnoabuseofdiscretion. X  &   "3"  3K2  D  .3  0 `   ContractDamages 3K"L݌ ` (#` (# Ќ   ` Bothpartieschallengethecontractaward.Thehospital |  arguesthatthejury's'  KԀverdictwasexcessiveandthedistrictcourt ( x  shouldhaveeithergrantedanewtrialorreducedtheawardto $  $16,857theamountthatthehospitalconcedesitowestoDr.   _Franceschi_Ԁbasedonitsinterpretationofthecontract(i.e.,the ,|  interpretationthejuryrejected).Weseenoreasontodisagree ( withthedistrictcourt'sconclusionthatthejurycouldrationally  interpretthecontractasitdid,notwithstandingthehospital's 0 argumentstothecontrary.Furthermore,thedistrictcourtnoted , thatthejuryaward,farfromexcessive,wasactually"lowerthan  whatDr._Franceschi_Ԁwouldhavereceivedhadhebeenpaidthe35%of 4 ...thenetincomeaftersubtractingoperationalexpensestothe 0 grossrevenue."(Emphasisadded).Thedistrictcourtwascorrect   todenythehospital'smotionfornewtrialor_remittitur_Ԁofthe 8!" contractdamages. "4$  ` Atthesametime,the_Franceschis_Ԁchallengethecourt's $& refusaltoincreasethecontractawardtoanamountthat,theysay, <&!( reflectsamorelogicalcomputation.Thisargumentisa '8#* nonstarter."[_T]he_ԀSeventhAmendmentflatlyprohibitsfederal )$, courtsfromaugmentingjuryverdictsby_additur_."Campos-_Orrego_v. @+&. Rivera,175F.3d89,97(1stCir.1999)(citing_Dimick_v._Schiedt_,  293U.S.474,486(1935)).  \  ` Affirmed.