The case involved a Section 1983 action in which the plaintiff asserted constitutional claims for damages against Puerto Rico police officers as well as the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, its Justice Department, and its Police Department. The court had previously dismissed the claims against the Commonwealth and its agencies on Eleventh Amendment grounds and imposed a $100 sanction on plaintiff's counsel. Counsel moved for reconsideration, arguing that no harm resulted because summonses were never issued or served on the governmental defendants. The court denied reconsideration, explaining that the improper inclusion of immune defendants had nonetheless required judicial intervention to dismiss the claims and that a sanction was warranted to deter similar filings and promote efficient case management under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1.
In this case, plaintiffs Walter Mercado-Salinas and Astromundo, Inc. sued defendants including Bart Enterprises International, Ltd. for federal trademark infringement and unfair competition over rights to the 'Walter Mercado' mark and likeness, stemming from a 1995 contract that assigned those rights to Bart. The defendants moved for partial dismissal, arguing that a prior consolidated Florida federal case involving breach of the same contract barred the claims under res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court denied the motion, holding that the Florida proceedings did not adjudicate the trademark ownership issue or resolve whether the agreement had been validly terminated in a manner that would preclude the current claims. The court reasoned that the trademark rights revert to Mercado only upon valid termination and that the prior judgment left open questions about ongoing rights under the agreement.
This case involves a claim for Social Security disability benefits by plaintiff Ruiz-Santiago. The court remanded the case to the Commissioner because the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) relied on a 2005 medical assessment of the plaintiff's residual functional capacity (RFC) without obtaining an updated assessment closer to the end of the claimed disability period in 2007. Although the ALJ considered some later evidence, no new RFC from a medical expert was provided for the relevant date, and the ALJ, not being a medical professional, could not make that determination independently. The court ordered that on remand, the ALJ must determine the plaintiff's physical RFC as of September 30, 2007, based on contemporaneous evidence, and may use a vocational expert if needed.
In General Motors, LLC v. Royal Motors Corp., GM filed a federal declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that it could lawfully terminate its motor vehicle dealer agreement with RMC after suspecting RMC of submitting false warranty claims. RMC moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending that the amount in controversy fell below the $75,000 diversity threshold and that GM sought only an advisory opinion. The court denied the motion, holding that the value of the ongoing dealer agreement satisfied the amount-in-controversy requirement and that the termination-rights dispute was ripe for decision under the Declaratory Judgment Act.
This case involves a dispute over rights to the 'Walter Mercado' trademark and service mark associated with an astrologer and psychic's services and materials. Plaintiffs, the performer and his company, sued multiple defendants including Bart Enterprises for trademark infringement and unfair competition after attempting to terminate a 1995 perpetual assignment agreement under which the mark was transferred to Bart; defendants counterclaimed and sought injunctive relief. The district court adopted in part a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, and granted the defendants' cross-motion. The core reasoning was that the contract validly assigned the mark to Bart without reversion upon termination, plaintiffs' continued commercial use created a likelihood of consumer confusion, and defendants therefore showed entitlement to interim relief barring plaintiffs from using the mark pending merits resolution.
This case is a medical malpractice action brought under diversity jurisdiction and Puerto Rico Civil Code Articles 1802 and 1803 by the plaintiffs against Dr. Diego Solis and other defendants, alleging that negligent post-operative care, including inadequate operative reports and failure to address infection, caused the patient's death from sepsis and peritonitis following gall bladder surgery. The court denied Dr. Solis' motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs' expert report and testimony created a genuine issue of material fact on causation, and disputes over the expert's credibility or inconsistencies could not be resolved at summary judgment but must instead go to the jury.