In this case, plaintiffs Caguas Satellite Corp. and its owner sued DISH Network entities for defamation, negligence, and unlawful termination of a retailer agreement under Puerto Rico law, after DISH accused them of installing illegal equipment and published a notice terminating their business relationship. The defendants moved to compel arbitration based on a broad arbitration clause in the 2003 Retailer Agreement (renewed multiple times), which covered disputes arising from the agreement, the parties' relationship, or compliance with laws. The court granted the motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, finding the clause valid and enforceable despite the lack of a signed copy (due to provisions allowing electronic acceptance), and also granted dismissal of the action rather than a stay. The claims were held to fall within the clause's scope because they related to the agreement's termination and related statements, with the clause surviving termination.
This case involves the United States filing multiple motions in limine to restrict the evidence and arguments available to defendants charged with fraud against financial institutions. The district court granted most of the motions, including those precluding arguments about unrelated wrongdoing by others, out-of-court statements by defendants or co-conspirators as hearsay, jury nullification, and lay testimony on mental state, while allowing cross-examination of character witnesses on specific conduct and denying a blanket exclusion of evidence suggesting victim institutions could have prevented the fraud. The court relied on precedents such as Wayte v. United States for prosecutorial discretion, Federal Rules of Evidence 801 and 405 for hearsay and character evidence, and First Circuit cases limiting victim-blaming arguments to prevent jury confusion. Defendants' requests to join responses were granted, though one defendant later pled guilty.
In United States v. Navarro, the government petitioned to enforce six IRS summonses issued to gather information for determining tax liability from respondents Ricardo Gonzalez-Navarro and Clara Alonso-Quintero. The court granted the petition, ordering enforcement of the summonses. The IRS satisfied its initial burden by submitting an affidavit showing that the investigation served a legitimate purpose, the inquiry was relevant, the information was not already possessed, and required administrative steps were followed. Respondents failed to rebut this showing or demonstrate abuse of process, as their opposition relied on speculation without proper evidentiary support and did not comply with court standards for affidavits.
This case involved two plaintiffs bringing claims of workplace sexual harassment and retaliation against a hospital and several individual defendants under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and various Puerto Rico statutes. The court addressed a motion to dismiss referred to a magistrate judge, who issued a report and recommendation partially granting and partially denying dismissal of the claims. Because the plaintiffs failed to timely oppose the motion to dismiss, the court deemed their later objections waived and did not consider arguments raised only after the magistrate's ruling. The court adopted the recommendation in part, dismissing many claims with or without prejudice for reasons including lack of individual liability under Title VII and failure to state a claim, while denying dismissal of certain Title VII and Puerto Rico law claims against the hospital and specific defendants that remained pending.
The case involved a motion by the government to amend an indictment in a conspiracy charge against the defendant by correcting a typographical error in a contract number from 2007-00740 to 2007-00745. The court decided to grant the motion, allowing the amendment. The core reasoning was that the change was a minor clerical error that did not alter the substance of the charges, the contract details, or the defendant's notice of the allegations, as he had received the correct contract information during discovery.
In this federal criminal case, defendant Jose Vizcarrondo-Casanova issued a subpoena to former Assistant U.S. Attorney Antonio Bazan seeking all memoranda, documents, or reports related to the autopsy of Ellis Manuel Andrades-Telleria. The government moved to quash the subpoena, arguing it violated Touhy regulations and failed the relevancy, admissibility, and specificity requirements under United States v. Nixon. The court held that the Touhy regulations provide internal guidance for the Department of Justice but do not authorize withholding materials in response to a properly issued subpoena. It further determined that the subpoena was relevant to issues including the cause of death and potential impeachment of witnesses, was not overly broad, and met the Nixon standard based on disclosed emails and the specific focus on autopsy-related materials. Accordingly, the court denied the motion to quash.
criminal lawprocedure
Affiliations
District Court, D. Puerto Rico — appointed by George W. Bush
