Jose Antonio Fuste

In this maritime tort case arising from a 2009 boating accident in Puerto Rico's territorial waters, plaintiffs Francisco Pérez-Ortiz and Efrain Cornier-Lancara were struck and injured by defendant Zambrana's boat while snorkeling, resulting in severe injuries to Ortiz including amputation of his left leg. Several family members, including Ortiz's purported common-law wife and various children, asserted claims for emotional distress damages. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss those emotional distress claims. The court granted the motion, dismissing the claims of the non-witness family members with prejudice. It reasoned that federal admiralty law, which applies uniformly in navigable waters, bars recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress by those who did not witness the accident and precludes supplementing or circumventing that rule with Puerto Rico law.

torts & liabilityfederal power

This case concerns the Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico's requirement that all attorneys licensed to practice in Puerto Rico courts participate in a life insurance program as a condition of membership. A prior decision in Romero v. Colegio had already ruled that this mandatory program violated members' First Amendment rights, yet the Colegio continued to enforce it, obstructed opt-outs, and delayed refunds. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff class, finding the Romero ruling had preclusive effect and that the Colegio's actions violated constitutional rights; it awarded over $4 million in damages (subject to opt-out adjustments), issued a protective order against misleading communications with class members, and rejected claims of Eleventh Amendment immunity. The core reasoning rested on issue preclusion, due process requirements for class notice and opt-outs, and the Colegio's independent status from the Commonwealth government.

civil rightsprocedurefree speech

The case involves a trust beneficiary suing the trustee for breach of fiduciary duty and duty of loyalty under Puerto Rico tort and contract law, based on allegations that the trustee made a risky investment in Bank of America stock through UBS Financial, causing the trust's value to drop sharply, and then failed to pursue legal action against UBS Financial. The defendant moved to dismiss for failure to join UBS Financial as an indispensable party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 or, alternatively, to compel arbitration under an agreement between the trustee and UBS Financial. The court analyzed whether UBS Financial qualified as a required party under Rule 19(a)(1), determining that it did not because complete relief could be accorded without it and its absence would not impair its interests or expose existing parties to inconsistent obligations, and thus did not reach the issues of joinder feasibility or dismissal under Rule 19(b); the opinion also addressed equitable estoppel arguments regarding arbitration.

procedurepropertytorts & liability

This case involved a dispute between two Puerto Rico-based financial institutions, Oriental Financial Group Inc. and its subsidiaries versus Cooperativa de Ahorro y Crédito Oriental, both using variations of the name 'Oriental' and similar branding for banking and financial services. Plaintiffs alleged federal service mark infringement, dilution, and cyberpiracy under the Lanham Act, along with related claims under Puerto Rico trademark law and unfair competition statutes. After converting a preliminary injunction hearing into a bench trial on liability, the court found that Defendant's 2009 logo and color scheme created a likelihood of confusion with Plaintiffs' established marks and trade dress, constituting infringement under both federal and Puerto Rico law. The court enjoined Defendant from using the infringing elements but rejected the dilution and cyberpiracy claims due to insufficient evidence of bad faith or fame. Defendant's counterclaim for declaratory relief was resolved in line with these findings.

business & regulatoryproperty

This diversity case involved a dispute over rights to certain payments (trade debt payments from publication sales) that served as collateral under a security agreement for a loan from Westernbank Puerto Rico (later succeeded by Banco Popular) to plaintiff Angulo-Mestas and his companies. The bank intervened seeking a declaratory judgment establishing its ownership of the collateral via its security interest, while defendants claimed priority based on an earlier assignment of the same accounts receivable in connection with a publishing distribution agreement. The court denied the bank's motion for reconsideration of a prior ruling and granted summary judgment to defendants, ordering disbursement of the deposited funds to them. The core reasoning was that the bank's belated perfection of its security interest could not defeat defendants' prior rights to the accounts receivable under applicable UCC rules as adopted in Puerto Rico.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a dispute over liability for environmental cleanup costs at a Puerto Rico service station where underground storage tanks released hazardous substances. Plaintiffs sued Esso Standard Oil under federal environmental statutes, prompting Esso to file counterclaims and third-party claims seeking reimbursement under CERCLA for response costs unrelated to the tanks, plus indemnification under Puerto Rico law. The movants (plaintiffs and certain third-party defendants) sought judgment on the pleadings to dismiss the CERCLA claims, arguing both a security-interest exemption and insufficient pleading of compliance with the National Contingency Plan. The court denied the motion, holding that the amended pleadings adequately alleged facts showing substantial compliance with the NCP and that the movants were owners or operators rather than mere security-interest holders.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a challenge by Wal-Mart de Puerto Rico to a court-ordered forfeiture of real property (Finca No. 5500) in Hatillo, Puerto Rico, which had been seized as proceeds of narcotics trafficking and money laundering by defendants Aureliano and Elliot Giraud-Piñero under 18 U.S.C. § 981, 21 U.S.C. § 881, and 21 U.S.C. § 853. Wal-Mart held an unrecorded leasehold interest in the property, where it operated an Amigo supermarket under a 2003 lease with the recorded owner, and sought a post-forfeiture hearing to protect its rights. The court ruled in Wal-Mart's favor, holding that its leasehold interest was superior and not subject to forfeiture. The reasoning centered on 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(B), finding that Wal-Mart was a bona fide lessee who could not reasonably have discovered the property's criminal origins through inspection or the registry at the time the lease was executed.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

In this case, property owners sued a municipality and its workers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights plus the Privileges and Immunities Clause after city employees trimmed a boundary tree, causing debris to damage the plaintiffs' garden and temporarily restrict access to part of their land. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, contending the court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiffs had not exhausted available Commonwealth remedies and that the complaint failed to state viable federal claims. The court granted the motion in part, holding the Fifth Amendment takings and Fourteenth Amendment due process claims unripe for lack of exhaustion and therefore dismissing them for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. It also dismissed the remaining federal claims, finding the pleaded facts did not show a Fourth Amendment violation or any infringement of privileges and immunities. The decision rested on the requirement that takings and due-process compensation claims first be pursued through state procedures and on the absence of any conduct that violated the other cited constitutional provisions.

civil rightspropertyprocedure

The case was a diversity action by plaintiff William L. Bonnell Co. to collect a $370,801.33 debt from defendants, which the parties settled in 2005 with dismissal under the agreement and court retention of jurisdiction to enforce it. In 2009, plaintiff moved to enforce the settlement after alleged breach, prompting defendants to seek reconsideration on grounds that a new suit was required, followed by further reconsideration motions and affidavits detailing performance under the agreement's aluminum-purchasing repayment mechanism involving successor entities after bankruptcy. The court held it retained ancillary jurisdiction because the dismissal incorporated the settlement terms, applied Puerto Rico civil law to interpret the contract, and analyzed whether the rebus sic stantibus doctrine permitted adjustment or rescission due to post-agreement changes like bankruptcy reorganization.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved claims by Enrique Otero-Merced, his wife, and their conjugal partnership against Preferred Health Inc., its CEO, its president, and an unnamed insurer for alleged age and disability discrimination, retaliation for filing an EEOC charge, and related tort liability under the federal ADEA and ADA as well as Puerto Rico statutes including Laws 44, 100, 115, and Articles 1802 and 1803. The individual defendants moved to dismiss the claims against them for failure to state a claim and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and later sought abstention on the Puerto Rico claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, holding that the ADEA and ADA do not allow individual liability and that the Puerto Rico claims against the individuals likewise failed, while denying the other motions as moot or premature and dismissing the claims against the movants without prejudice to refiling in Puerto Rico courts.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

In Algarin v. Potter, a U.S. Postal Service employee born in 1950 sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, alleging that he was denied a postmaster promotion due to age and in retaliation for prior Equal Employment Opportunity complaints about sex and age discrimination. The court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing the age-discrimination claim on grounds that the plaintiff had not exhausted administrative remedies and could not establish a prima-facie case. It denied summary judgment on the retaliation claim, however, finding that the plaintiff had shown protected activity, an adverse action, a nondiscriminatory reason offered by the employer, and sufficient evidence of pretext to create a triable issue. The decision rested on the distinction between direct age discrimination and retaliation claims, along with evidence that the selecting official relied on a supervisor's negative view of the plaintiff's grievance-filing history.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In this case, plaintiff Advanced Cardiology Center Corporation sued the Municipality of Mayagüez and its officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that defendants had unlawfully retained its personal property at the Mayagüez Medical Center in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments and seeking a preliminary injunction for its return. The dispute arose from an ongoing eviction and lease conflict in Commonwealth court, where plaintiff had already pursued related claims. The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the public interest in maintaining uninterrupted healthcare services at the medical center outweighed other factors. It also denied defendants' motions to dismiss or stay based on Younger and Colorado River abstention doctrines as well as failure to join an indispensable party, concluding that monetary relief could be awarded without additional parties and that abstention was not required. The ruling focused on balancing equitable factors and procedural requirements without resolving the underlying constitutional claims.

civil rightspropertyprocedurehealthcare

Ivyport Logistical Services sued Caribbean Airport Facilities, Cargo-Force-SJU, and the Puerto Rico Ports Authority in federal court seeking an injunction to prevent repossession of its cargo-handling equipment at Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport, based on alleged violations of federal statutes. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing lack of federal-question jurisdiction and that the claim had become moot. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case, holding that the cited federal statutes did not create a private right of action and that a parallel Commonwealth-court order already barring repossession had rendered the federal injunction request moot, eliminating any live controversy.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

This case involved plaintiffs who sued condominium defendants and the Puerto Rico Firefighters Corps over a dispute regarding access to a fire door on their penthouse terrace, claiming violations of federal constitutional rights under the Due Process, Equal Protection, and Takings Clauses, as well as Puerto Rico law. The district court previously dismissed the federal claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims. Defendants then moved for attorney’s fees under Puerto Rico’s Condominiums Act of 2003. The court denied the motion, holding that because jurisdiction was based on federal questions rather than diversity or supplemental jurisdiction, federal common law applies and disfavors fee awards absent express congressional authorization. The court noted that the litigation was resolved entirely on federal jurisdictional grounds without reaching the merits of any Puerto Rico claims.

civil rightspropertyprocedurefederal power

This case involves claims by a mother and her daughter against the Puerto Rico Department of Education and a school principal, alleging that the daughter was sexually harassed by a school janitor in violation of Title IX and other laws. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, seeking dismissal of the federal claims. The court dismissed the Title IX claims against the individual defendants and all § 1983 claims, as well as requests for punitive damages and injunctive relief benefiting third parties, but allowed the Title IX claim against the DOE and injunctive relief for the daughter's own injuries to proceed, reasoning that Title IX does not permit suits against individuals or punitive damages and that § 1983 claims are precluded by the comprehensive Title IX scheme.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involves a union pension fund and its trustees suing multiple hotels and hospitals for allegedly failing to make required contributions to a multiemployer pension plan, in violation of ERISA's minimum funding rules under 29 U.S.C. § 1082. The defendants moved to dismiss and for summary judgment, contending that the pension fund was not a valid trust under Puerto Rico law because the collective bargaining agreements creating it were not executed as public deeds, which they argued deprived the fund and trustees of standing to sue. The court reviewed prior related litigation reaching a similar conclusion on standing for the fund itself, examined the trust agreements from 1971, 1976, and 1994, and analyzed the interplay between Puerto Rico trust requirements and federal ERISA provisions, including Section 515. The opinion addresses the applicability of ERISA, the fund's status as an employee benefit plan, and the trustees' standing under ERISA Section 502.

labor & employmentfederal power

This case was a class action brought by numerous healthcare providers, laboratories, and pharmacies against Triple-S Management Corporation and related insurance entities, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) through schemes of fraudulent overcharging of subscribers, underpayment to providers, and extortion via market power. The plaintiffs claimed these acts involved mail and wire fraud as well as Hobbs Act violations. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissed all RICO claims. It reasoned that, after limited class-certification discovery, the plaintiffs could not produce evidence of the required predicate acts, as there were no fraudulent communications or extortionate conduct meeting the statutory definitions.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryhealthcare

In this case, plaintiff Aitza Figueroa Telemaco, a black woman employed as a data entry clerk at Mobile Paints Manufacturing Co., sued the company and related parties under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging discrimination based on sex, race, and pregnancy, along with violations of Puerto Rico law. The claims stemmed from events including her two maternity leaves, increased job responsibilities without corresponding pay raises amid company financial difficulties, internal complaints about perceived harassment, and her eventual termination after applying for another position. The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all federal claims with prejudice. The court reasoned that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of discriminatory animus or pretext under the applicable burden-shifting framework for her race, sex, and pregnancy discrimination claims. With no remaining federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the associated Commonwealth law claims.

civil rightslabor & employment

In Rodriguez v. Potter, a U.S. Postal Service supervisor sued the Postmaster General alleging race discrimination under Title VII, age discrimination under the ADEA, and a Fifth Amendment violation after receiving three warning letters for poor supervision and mishandling a subordinate's discipline. The defendant moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds, including lack of an adverse employment action and failure to exhaust remedies, and the motion was unopposed. The court granted summary judgment and dismissed the claims with prejudice, holding that the plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination because the warning letters did not constitute an adverse employment action and that the defendant had offered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions that went unrebutted.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In this case, plaintiffs who leased a penthouse apartment sued the Puerto Rico Firefighters Corps and others under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that administrative orders designating a terrace as a common area for fire-escape access violated their due process, equal protection, and Fifth Amendment takings rights, along with related local-law claims. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court analyzed the takings claim under Williamson County ripeness requirements, noted that plaintiffs must first pursue state remedies and compensation procedures, and treated the remaining federal and state claims as insufficient to establish federal jurisdiction. It therefore dismissed the federal action, while observing that certain federal takings issues could potentially be preserved for later federal review if not litigated in local proceedings.

civil rightspropertyprocedure