Gustavo Antonio Gelpi jr

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.

civil rightsprocedurefederal power

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.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

This case involves a medical malpractice lawsuit brought under Puerto Rico law by plaintiffs against Presbyterian Community Hospital and other defendants, stemming from complications following gallbladder surgery performed by an independent physician at the hospital. The court granted in part and denied in part the hospital's motion for summary judgment. It held that the hospital could not be held liable for the physician's alleged negligence because he was not an employee but an independent contractor with clinical privileges. However, the court found genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the hospital properly granted those privileges and whether its nursing staff breached the standard of care in handling patient transfer documentation, precluding summary judgment on those claims.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Alfredo Pinero, M.D., sued his former employer, the State Insurance Fund Corporation of Puerto Rico, and several supervisors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his professional services contract was rescinded due to political discrimination based on his affiliation with the Popular Democratic Party. The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion and dismissed the claims with prejudice, holding that the complaint did not plead a prima facie case because it relied on conclusory statements rather than specific facts showing the parties' opposing affiliations, the defendants' knowledge of the plaintiff's affiliation, or that political affiliation motivated the contract termination. The court applied the plausibility standard from Twombly and Iqbal, finding the allegations insufficient to support an inference of discriminatory intent.

civil rightslabor & employment

In Ortiz v. Valdes, the plaintiff brought an employment discrimination claim under Puerto Rico's Law 100 against her employer and three individual co-defendants, alleging sex and gender discrimination. The court had initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the Law 100 claim on timeliness grounds, finding that the plaintiff's administrative charge with the EEOC and ADU tolled the one-year statute of limitations. On the defendants' Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment, the court reconsidered and granted the motion, holding that an administrative charge operates as an extrajudicial claim that requires personal notification to each defendant to toll the limitations period. Because the individual co-defendants were not personally notified of the charge, the tolling was ineffective as to them, rendering the Law 100 claim time-barred when the complaint was filed on September 15, 2009. The court therefore dismissed the claim against co-defendants Aponte, Rivera, and Velez.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned a dispute over ownership of the song "Fichas Negras" between co-defendants Universal and Latin American Music Co. (LAMCO), arising from conflicting assignment contracts and recordations under the Copyright Act. Prior to trial the court had determined that LAMCO's 1995 recordation would take priority over an earlier Mexican assignment if the recordation and LAMCO's 1999 copyright registration were valid. After a bench trial the court held that ownership vested in LAMCO, ruling that the valid certificates of recordation and registration created a rebuttable presumption of validity that Universal failed to overcome with evidence of invalidity, bad faith, or material misstatements. The court admitted the assignment documents for the limited purpose of showing what LAMCO had recorded and found that LAMCO had conducted a copyright search consistent with good-faith requirements under 17 U.S.C. § 205(d).

property

The case involves plaintiff Rafael Sierra-Pascual alleging copyright infringement by defendants Pina Records and Rafael Pina-Nieves for the unauthorized release and commercial distribution of the song 'Noche Triste' on their album 'Masterpiece.' The defendants moved for partial summary judgment, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction and that the plaintiff's actions created an implied nonexclusive license or estopped the infringement claim. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the parties' intent and any limitations on the scope of an implied license, as well as factual disputes on the elements of estoppel. The ruling turned on evidence that the plaintiff had registered the copyright, agreed only to promotional uses, and disputed any authorization for album sales.

property

This case involved an appeal from a bankruptcy court decision in which the Chapter 7 Trustee for a debtor's estate sought to avoid an unperfected mortgage lien held by Doral Mortgage Corporation and Doral Financial Corporation on the debtor's residence. The lien was unperfected due to an error in recording the mortgage deed in the wrong property number in the Puerto Rico Registry of Property, which was later corrected after the bankruptcy filing. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling that the Trustee could avoid the lien under the strong arm powers of 11 U.S.C. § 544(a)(3), which grant the Trustee the status of a bona fide purchaser. The core reasoning was that, under Puerto Rico mortgage law, a rectification of the recording error does not relate back to the original presentation date when an intervening bona fide purchaser exists, allowing avoidance of the lien as against the Trustee.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved motions by defendants in a federal prosecution to suppress narcotics evidence seized from a secret compartment on a vessel, as well as a related motion for reconsideration. The court denied both motions without prejudice. It held that under binding First Circuit precedent from United States v. Vilches-Navarrete, the defendants lacked Fourth Amendment standing because society does not recognize an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in hidden compartments created to conceal contraband. The court noted that it was obligated to follow this precedent despite arguments based on case law from other circuits suggesting a different outcome. It also reaffirmed its prior ruling denying standing to the "guest" defendants on the vessel.

criminal lawprocedure

In Gonzalez-Perez v. Davila, plaintiff Fernando Gonzalez-Perez sued police officers and supervisors under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, claiming excessive force during his arrest following a domestic violence call, along with related state-law claims under Article 1802 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code. Defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds including failure to state a claim, qualified immunity, and inapplicability of supervisory liability. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing only the failure-to-train supervisory claim, but denied it as to the remaining claims because genuine disputes of material fact existed over the objective reasonableness of the force used and the supervisors' awareness of relevant events, precluding summary judgment or qualified immunity at this stage.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

In this case, plaintiffs sued Reliable Financial Services and others after the repossession of their financed vehicle, claiming violations of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment via 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with Puerto Rico negligence claims under Articles 1802 and 1803, and seeking to declare the self-help repossession statute unconstitutional. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing no state action or breach of peace occurred and that damages were not recoverable. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the officers' presence at the repossession, which could support claims of state involvement or a breach of the peace under the Commercial Transactions Act, and noting that plaintiffs had alleged more than nominal damages. The ruling applied standard summary judgment review without weighing evidence or making credibility determinations.

civil rightspropertyproceduretorts & liability

This case involves plaintiffs' claims against Esso under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Clean Water Act (CWA) for alleged contamination from leaking underground storage tanks affecting groundwater and the Piñonas River. Esso moved for a bench trial, arguing that civil penalties were unavailable under RCRA Subchapter IX and that CWA does not regulate groundwater contamination, eliminating any right to a jury trial. The court ruled that plaintiffs have a viable RCRA Subchapter III claim allowing for civil penalties, so a jury trial is appropriate on the RCRA enforcement action. It also permitted plaintiffs to proceed on alternate theories of CWA liability involving surface water connections and found the Piñonas River qualifies as navigable waters of the United States. The decision rests on statutory text distinguishing RCRA enforcement provisions and case law interpreting CWA jurisdiction over tributaries and connected waters.

environmentprocedure

In this case, San Juan Cable LLC (OneLink) sued the Telecommunications Regulatory Board of Puerto Rico and PRTC, alleging that the Board violated the federal Cable Act by authorizing PRTC to offer its Claro TV cable service on a temporary, free beta-testing basis to 200 employees without first granting a required franchise. The plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to halt the service until a franchise decision was made. The court analyzed the Cable Act's definitions of 'cable operator' and 'cable service,' rejecting arguments that the testing phase fell outside the franchise requirement because recipients were not paying subscribers or because it was merely a pilot program. It concluded that the Act was violated and that OneLink showed a strong likelihood of success on the merits, ordering the defendants to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue.

business & regulatoryfederal power

In this shareholder derivative suit, plaintiff Hunter Wiley sued officers and directors of W Holding Company on behalf of the company, alleging violations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and violations of Puerto Rico corporate law based on improper accounting for impaired loans, false SEC filings, and inadequate internal controls. Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 23.1, arguing lack of standing due to insufficient details on stock ownership, failure to plead demand futility, and legal deficiencies in several claims. The court granted the motion in part by dismissing the Sarbanes-Oxley claim against all defendants and the unjust enrichment claim against five defendants without prejudice, while denying dismissal as to the other counts and defendants. The rulings turned on whether the amended complaint adequately alleged continuous stock ownership, particularized facts showing director conflicts, and the required elements of each cause of action.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves three Federally Qualified Health Centers seeking a preliminary injunction to compel Puerto Rico's Secretary of Health to make prospective Medicaid wraparound payments under 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(bb). After an evidentiary hearing, the court found a likelihood of success on the merits because federal law requires full compliance by the Commonwealth, that plaintiffs faced irreparable harm from ongoing financial losses that could force closures, and that the balance of equities favored an injunction to uphold federal Medicaid policy despite impacts on the Commonwealth's budget. The court therefore ordered prospective payments but deferred entry of the injunction pending appointment of a Special Master to calculate amounts due, while also addressing the constitutionality of the Medicaid funding cap for Puerto Rico under the Spending Clause and the applicability of the Insular Cases doctrine.

healthcarefederal power

In this diversity case, plaintiff Melissa Montañez Morales sued the Municipality of San Juan alleging that its negligent failure to maintain a stop sign at the intersection of Santa Cecilia and Esquilin Streets caused a car accident in which she was injured. The Municipality moved for summary judgment, arguing that a prior Puerto Rico court settlement in a related suit by her passengers barred her claim under claim or issue preclusion. The court denied the motion, finding no genuine issues resolved by the prior action because Montañez had never been served with process, waived service, or participated in that litigation or settlement. The opinion applies standard summary judgment rules and concludes that preclusion doctrines do not apply on these facts.

torts & liabilityprocedure