Francisco Augusto Besosa

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.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

taxesfederal power

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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

In this criminal case, the government moved to admit crime scene and autopsy photographs of the victim at trial to show the extent of bodily decomposition, corroborate the manner of disposal, and rebut challenges to the forensic pathologist's cause-of-death determination. Defendant Vizcarrondo opposed the motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, contending that the images were unduly prejudicial and that less graphic alternatives existed. The court granted the motion as to photographs 77, 81, 82, 83, and 92 after finding that their probative value was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, denied admission of numbers 78 and 91, admitted several others without objection, and noted that appropriate limiting instructions would be issued.

criminal lawprocedure

In this criminal case, the government moved to disclose a witness's grand jury testimony to probation officers preparing presentence investigation reports for defendants Hector Martinez and Juan Bravo-Fernandez following their convictions. The defendants opposed the motion, arguing that the testimony was unreliable, untested by cross-examination, and incomplete. The court granted the motion, holding that sentencing courts have broad discretion to consider hearsay evidence like grand jury testimony, which the First Circuit has deemed sufficiently reliable when given under oath, and that the Confrontation Clause does not apply at sentencing. The court noted that the defendants had access to the full transcript and would have an opportunity to respond at sentencing or in objections to the reports.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a post-verdict dispute in a federal criminal prosecution of defendant Hector Martinez-Maldonado on charges including conspiracy (Count One) and federal program bribery. The jury returned a guilty verdict on the conspiracy count but answered “no” to each listed object of the conspiracy on the verdict form, creating an internal inconsistency. The court held that declaring a mistrial on Count One would not violate double jeopardy principles because manifest necessity existed due to the verdict’s logical inconsistency, which prevented a valid conviction while also precluding an acquittal. Accordingly, the court dismissed Count One without prejudice, allowing the possibility of retrial rather than granting the defendant’s request for judgment of acquittal.

criminal lawprocedure

In this criminal case, defendant Jose Vizcarrondo-Casanova moved for severance from a joint trial, arguing that testimony about statements made by co-defendant Erick Diaz-Colon would cause overwhelming spillover prejudice that could not be cured by jury instructions. The court denied the motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14, finding that the risk of prejudice to Vizcarrondo was too remote because the statements were not made by him, in his presence, or with his knowledge or endorsement. The court emphasized that limiting instructions would direct the jury to consider the evidence only against Diaz-Colon and not against the other defendants, and that such instructions have been held sufficient in similar cases to prevent spillover prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs suing the United States alleging that staff at a federally supported hospital violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) screening and stabilization requirements and committed medical malpractice after treating Ferdinand Cruz-Mendez for bee stings, which later led to serious eye infection and vision loss. Following briefing on the issue, the court addressed whether EMTALA provided a viable claim against the federal government. The court dismissed the EMTALA claim, holding that the United States retains sovereign immunity from EMTALA suits because the statute contains no express waiver, while the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) separately provides the exclusive avenue for relief based on negligence under Puerto Rico law. The decision rested on established principles that the government's consent to suit defines the limits of federal court jurisdiction and that EMTALA is not a federal malpractice statute.

healthcarefederal powertorts & liability

In Diaz v. Roman, plaintiffs Medero, Zayas, and their family sued Puerto Rico police officers under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, plus Puerto Rico tort law, alleging that officers failed to investigate or act on repeated complaints of harassment, threats, and vandalism by the family of one defendant officer, including an alleged courtroom assault and interference with a protective order. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing failure to state a claim, lack of standing for one plaintiff, and that the claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations. The court granted the motion, holding that all federal claims were time-barred because the latest alleged constitutional violations occurred more than a year before the February 2011 filing, the continuing violation doctrine did not apply to discrete acts, and supplemental state claims were likewise dismissed. The opinion notes that each discrete injury starts its own limitations period and that earlier claims would also be untimely.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved Virtudes Arce, a hearing-impaired distribution clerk at the U.S. Postal Service since 1986, who sued Postmaster General John E. Potter alleging intentional discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Rehabilitation Act, based on issues such as interpreter services, scheduling changes, interactions with supervisors, and other workplace conditions. The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims with prejudice. The court reasoned that Arce failed to show she was disabled under applicable legal standards, did not establish a causal link between any adverse actions and her disability or protected EEO activity, and that the incidents described were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to support a hostile work environment claim.

civil rightslabor & employmentfederal power

In this case, defendants Bravo-Fernandez and Martinez moved for an evidentiary hearing to investigate alleged juror misconduct after their trial, based on an anonymous radio interview in which an unidentified person claiming to be a juror described exposure to news coverage, juror discussions of that coverage, coordinated clothing choices, and transportation arrangements. The court denied the motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), which generally bars post-verdict inquiry into jury deliberations except for specific claims of extraneous prejudicial information or outside influences. The district judge reasoned that the anonymous and vague statements provided no clear, strong, or reliable evidence of impropriety that would justify summoning jurors, distinguishing the allegations from cases where concrete evidence of bias or external materials had been presented.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, the government proposed a plea agreement to defendant Erik Diaz-Colon but withdrew the offer before any hearing or court approval, citing new evidence, after which the defendant sought to enforce the agreement through specific performance. The court granted the government's motion to withdraw and denied the defendant's request. The core reasoning was that the unsigned plea agreement constituted an offer for a unilateral contract under First Circuit precedent, which remains revocable until the defendant enters a guilty plea that the court accepts. The court noted that plea negotiations lack constitutional significance until embodied in a judgment and found no evidence of detrimental reliance by the defendant that would make the offer enforceable.

criminal lawprocedure

The case Arce v. Potter involved a hearing-impaired U.S. Postal Service employee who alleged intentional discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Rehabilitation Act, claiming ongoing violations after a 2005 settlement of prior complaints. The defendant moved for partial dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing that references to the settlement agreement meant the claims concerned breach of contract and thus fell under the Tucker Act's exclusive jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims. The district court denied the motion, adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after de novo review, because the complaint's counts were not predicated on breach of contract but instead asserted federal discrimination claims arising under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

In this case, an inmate serving a sentence in Puerto Rico sued correctional officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging multiple incidents of physical assault in 2004 and 2005. After a prior appeal, the district court addressed whether the plaintiff had exhausted available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act before filing suit. The court found that the plaintiff failed to properly exhaust those remedies with respect to the claims, that the defendants had not waived the exhaustion defense, and that they were not estopped from raising it. Because exhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA, the court dismissed the entire action with prejudice.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Ursula Vazquez-Baldonado suing Alicia Domenech and Jose Reyes under the federal RICO statute for alleged fraud involving fake immigration and employment legal services, including taking payments for nonexistent filings with DHS and mishandling a large settlement check. After the defendants defaulted, the plaintiff moved for default judgment. The court denied the motion without prejudice, holding that the complaint did not sufficiently plead the required elements of a RICO claim, such as a pattern of racketeering activity or the existence of an enterprise, and gave the plaintiff until June 30, 2011, to file a renewed motion with detailed legal analysis or face possible dismissal.

immigrationcriminal lawprocedure

This case involves two former employees of the Municipality of San Sebastian who sued the municipality and several officials under Title VII and Puerto Rico law, alleging sexual harassment by their program coordinator and retaliation after they complained. The plaintiffs described repeated vulgar comments, sexual remarks, and offensive behavior by the coordinator, and they claimed the municipality failed to adequately address the issues despite meetings and letters to the mayor. Both sides filed cross-motions for summary judgment on liability. The court denied both motions, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether the harassment continued after initial complaints, whether the employer took prompt remedial action, and whether the plaintiffs suffered retaliation. The decision rests on the need for a trial to resolve these contested issues rather than granting judgment as a matter of law.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved the United States seeking to enforce an IRS tax levy by requiring defendants to surrender $74,000 they owed to Esamar, Inc., a company subject to a federal tax lien, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6332(d). Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), contending that Esamar breached the underlying contract and that contract terms excused them from any tax-related liability. The court denied the motion, holding that the complaint sufficiently stated a claim and that defendants' contract-based arguments did not constitute valid defenses, as only two narrow defenses are available against an IRS levy demand: prior judicial attachment or lack of possession of the property.

taxesfederal powerprocedure