Juan R. Torruella

The case concerned disputes between Puerto Rico Telephone Company (PRTC) and SprintCom over payments due under their 2000 interconnection agreement, specifically whether the FCC's ISP Remand Order triggered the agreement's change-of-law clause to require reciprocal compensation for ISP-bound traffic, and whether Sprint could recover alleged overcharges by PRTC for transit traffic. The First Circuit reversed the district court's upholding of the Puerto Rico Telecommunications Regulatory Board's order on the ISP-bound traffic issue, ruling that the change-of-law provision was not triggered, and remanded for injunctive relief and further Board proceedings. It affirmed the dismissal of Sprint's transit-traffic claims, holding that Sprint had waived its right to challenge the relevant invoices under the agreement's waiver clause. The court found no properly preserved argument that an exception for intentional breach (dolo) applied to override the waiver.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

In Rodriguez v. Municipality of San Juan, plaintiff Ricardo Ríos, a municipal purchasing officer and Popular Democratic Party supporter, sued the municipality, Mayor Jorge Santini, and a supervisor under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his 2006 termination and prior mistreatment stemmed from political discrimination and retaliation for protected speech criticizing the mayor, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments; he also brought related local-law claims. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the local claims. The First Circuit affirmed summary judgment on the procedural due process and equal protection claims, as well as all claims against defendant Díaz, but vacated summary judgment for Santini and the municipality on the political discrimination and free-speech retaliation claims. It held that the record contained triable issues of fact about whether Ríos’s political affiliation or speech motivated the adverse actions and whether Santini, as a final policymaker, caused any constitutional injury sufficient to support municipal liability. The court also vacated the dismissal of the local-law claims against those two defendants and remanded for further proceedings.

civil rightsfree speech

The case involved Jorge Pérez-Cordero, a butcher at Wal-Mart in Puerto Rico, who sued his employer and supervisors under Title VII and Puerto Rico law, alleging that his female supervisor sexually harassed him by making unwanted advances and that management retaliated against him after he rejected her and complained. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding insufficient evidence of unwelcome, pervasive harassment based on sex. On appeal, the First Circuit vacated the judgment, holding that the evidence, viewed favorably to the plaintiff, could support claims of a hostile work environment due to sex and retaliation for opposing it, including temporal links between complaints and adverse actions.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In this case, Omar Santiago Miranda pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, crack, and marijuana, but later moved to withdraw his plea, claiming it was involuntary due to prescription drug use, lack of sleep, familial coercion, and bipolar disorder. The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing and sentenced him to 380 months in prison. On appeal, Santiago challenged the denial and the lack of a hearing, while the government argued the appeal was barred by a waiver in the plea agreement. The First Circuit bypassed the waiver issue and affirmed the district court's judgment, reasoning that the change-of-plea colloquy demonstrated Santiago's competence and lack of coercion, supported by unchallenged facts from the plea agreement and presentence report.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Áurea Vázquez-Rijos suing her deceased husband's parents, Abraham and Barbara Anhang, in federal court after removal from Puerto Rico Superior Court, seeking a share of his estate based on prenuptial agreements, usufructuary rights, and community property rules under Puerto Rico law, plus damages for alleged obstruction. More than three years after filing, the district court dismissed the suit with prejudice due to the plaintiff's repeated noncompliance with court orders, extensive delays in prosecution, and failure to serve Barbara Anhang. On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in choosing dismissal after issuing multiple warnings, granting a motion to compel, and attempting lesser measures over time, as the plaintiff's conduct included missed deadlines, incomplete discovery responses, and refusal to appear for continued deposition. The court rejected arguments that the delays were non-willful or that lesser sanctions were inadequately considered, noting that bad faith is not required for such sanctions and that the record showed flagrant and repeated abuses.

procedurefamily lawproperty

In United States v. Chaney, the defendant, a guest in a motel room raided by police executing an arrest warrant for another person on drug charges, moved to suppress crack cocaine and ammunition found in his pockets after he consented to a search for identification while handcuffed on the floor. After the district court denied the motion, Chaney entered a conditional guilty plea to simple possession of cocaine and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the search fell within the scope of Chaney's voluntary consent because the officer removed the drugs before locating the ID card, that the consent was not coerced, and that the initial detention did not amount to a de facto arrest given the circumstances of the protective sweep and efforts to identify the unknown occupant.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a dispute over which of two commercial general liability insurance policies provided primary coverage for a negligence claim stemming from a construction site accident in Maine. Wright-Ryan, the general contractor, was insured under its own Acadia policy and was also an additional insured on its subcontractor's AIG policy. After Acadia defended and settled the underlying suit, it and Wright-Ryan sued AIG seeking reimbursement, but the district court granted summary judgment to AIG on the ground that Acadia's policy was primary. The First Circuit reversed, concluding that the plain language of the policies' "Other Insurance" clauses required treating the AIG policy as primary and the Acadia policy as excess because "you" and "your" referred only to the named insured subcontractor.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved boat buyers who sued the seller and repair service, Marine World Distributors, after experiencing repeated engine failures and malfunctions on a used boat purchased "as is" with no warranties. The plaintiffs brought claims under admiralty law and Article 1802 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code for negligence, seeking damages including for emotional distress. The district court found the defendant liable and awarded damages, but the First Circuit reversed, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove causation between the defendant's repairs or conduct and the boat's ongoing problems. The court emphasized that liability under both admiralty and Puerto Rico negligence law requires evidence linking the defendant's actions to the injury, which was absent here despite multiple repair attempts by the defendant alone.

torts & liabilityproperty

The case involved former Passamaquoddy Tribe governor Robert Newell and finance director James Parisi, who were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States and related offenses under 18 U.S.C. §§ 287, 666, and 669 for misusing federal grants and tribal monies during Newell's tenure. On appeal, the defendants challenged federal court jurisdiction over internal tribal matters, the sufficiency of the evidence, jury instructions, sentencing, and the restitution order. The First Circuit vacated Parisi's conviction on one count, reduced the restitution amount against him by $129,044, and remanded for clarification on whether certain housing authority transfers were included in the order, but otherwise affirmed the convictions and related rulings based on the evidence presented and applicable federal statutes.

criminal lawfederal power

This case involved the convictions of three defendants for participating in a drug distribution conspiracy operated by the "Los Dementes" organization in Puerto Rico, including charges of possessing and distributing heroin, crack-cocaine, cocaine, and marijuana near a public housing project, as well as firearm offenses tied to a failed gang assassination attempt that killed three bystanders. The district court sentenced two defendants to life imprisonment and the third to 151 months. On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed the convictions and most sentences, finding sufficient evidence and no prejudicial errors in the trial proceedings or evidentiary rulings, but vacated the drug quantity findings for one defendant because the evidence did not support the jury's determinations and remanded for resentencing on that basis.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

In United States v. Pol-Flores, the defendant was convicted by a jury on ten counts of wire fraud after referring two investors to a friend who fraudulently obtained their $290,000 investment in a company of which Pol was a director and president, with Pol personally receiving nearly $20,000 of the funds through wire transfers. The district court applied sentencing enhancements for vulnerable victims and the loss amount, resulting in a 37-month prison term. On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed the conviction, holding that sufficient evidence showed Pol associated himself with the fraudulent scheme and shared the requisite criminal intent, as demonstrated by his role in directing the investors, his control over related bank accounts, and his receipt of kickbacks. The court also upheld the sentence, concluding that the loss was reasonably foreseeable to Pol and that the term was substantively reasonable based on his participation in enabling the scheme.

criminal law

The case involved Miguel Guzmán-Rivera, a certified public accountant whose license was summarily suspended by the Puerto Rico Examining Board of Accountants for failing to submit a required practice review report, followed by further proceedings with inadequate notices under Puerto Rico law. Guzmán sued the board members and others, alleging improper handling of the administrative process leading to suspension and potential revocation of his CPA license. The district court dismissed the claims, and the First Circuit affirmed, holding that the board members were protected by quasi-judicial immunity. The court reasoned that although the board committed grave procedural errors, such as summary suspension without proper hearings or compliant notices, it had jurisdiction over CPA licensing matters, and officials performing judicial functions are immune from suit for acts within that jurisdiction even if flawed.

procedurebusiness & regulatorycivil rights

The case involved a U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer who was arrested and charged by Puerto Rico police and prosecutors with misappropriation after he removed and destroyed a permit decal from a junked police vehicle near the airport; the local charges were dismissed for lack of probable cause. The officer sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that a Department of Homeland Security agent maliciously prosecuted him by participating in the local investigation and proceedings. The district court granted summary judgment to the government, and the First Circuit affirmed. The court held that the plaintiff failed to show the federal agent initiated the prosecution, as the Puerto Rico authorities acted independently, and there was no evidence of malice or bad faith by the agent, who attended as an observer.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityfederal power

The case involved parents suing a hospital under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) after their son died following a transfer from one hospital to another for treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding. The district court granted summary judgment to the hospital, and the appeals court affirmed. The court reasoned that the hospital complied with EMTALA by having a physician certify that the benefits of transfer outweighed the risks and by providing appropriate pre-transfer care without deviating from standard procedures, noting that EMTALA is not a malpractice statute.

healthcare

This case involved a dispute between Dialysis Access Center, LLC and related parties and RMS Lifeline, Inc. over a management services agreement for a vascular access center. The plaintiffs sought to have the agreement declared null and void based on claims of fraud in its formation and performance, while RMS moved to compel arbitration under the agreement's clause requiring disputes to be resolved by the American Health Lawyers Association. The district court dismissed the case and ordered arbitration, and the First Circuit affirmed. The court held that the plaintiffs' claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause and that, under Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act, the clause was severable and enforceable because there was no specific challenge to its validity separate from the contract as a whole. Issues such as compliance with any pre-arbitration negotiation requirement were also left for the arbitrator to decide.

business & regulatoryprocedurehealthcare

This case involves David Eduardo Castañeda-Castillo's petition for asylum and withholding of removal based on his past service as a Peruvian military officer and his claimed fear of future persecution by the Shining Path due to his association with a 1985 civilian massacre in Accomarca, Peru, in which he did not participate. The First Circuit previously held that the persecutor bar could not apply without proof of actual knowledge of persecution and remanded for further proceedings. On review of the BIA's latest decision, the court found legal errors in the adjudication of Castañeda's claims, including the failure to properly evaluate whether his persecution was on account of membership in a cognizable social group of Peruvian military officers linked to the Accomarca events. The court vacated the denial of asylum and remanded for the BIA to determine if that group qualifies as a protected social group under asylum law, which would entitle Castañeda to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution.

immigration

The case involved homeowners James and Theresa Miles, who held an insurance policy with Great Northern Insurance Company covering fire loss to their Massachusetts home. After a fire occurred, the insurer investigated and the Mileses sued for breach of contract and unfair insurance practices while the insurer countersued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The district court ruled that the Mileses had breached the policy and entered judgment for the insurer. On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed, holding that Theresa Miles independently breached the contract by willfully refusing to submit to an examination under oath as required by the policy terms. This material breach barred her from recovering under the policy, regardless of any imputation of her husband's conduct.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a lawsuit by Puerto Rico Telephone Company and affiliates against the Commonwealth Retirement System seeking a declaratory judgment that Puerto Rico Act 234, which allowed certain PRTC employees to switch from company retirement plans to the government plan, was preempted by ERISA and therefore invalid. The district court, with the defendants' consent, entered judgment declaring the Act preempted and void; it also denied a motion by affected employees to intervene. On appeal, the First Circuit remanded for the district court to reconsider the denial of intervention, holding that the employees were entitled to a meaningful opportunity to litigate the preemption question either by intervening in this action or through their separate pending suit. The appeals court expressed no view on whether Act 234 is in fact preempted by ERISA, noting that the district court's ruling resulted from consent rather than adversarial litigation.

labor & employmentfederal powerprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Delia Esquilín-Mendoza suing Don King Productions for negligence and illegal embargo after her vehicle was seized to enforce a default judgment from an earlier federal lawsuit over unauthorized exhibition of a boxing telecast at her restaurant, even though the judgment and writ were later vacated due to errors in naming the defendants. The district court dismissed the tort claims for lack of causation between the defendant's conduct and the alleged injuries. The First Circuit vacated that judgment and dismissed the suit for lack of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, concluding it was a legal certainty that recoverable damages could not exceed the $75,000 threshold because the plaintiff had no viable claim for emotional distress from the judgment itself and the value of a rental car for the period of delay was far below the jurisdictional amount.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved consolidated challenges by telecommunications companies, including Puerto Rico Telephone Company (PRTC) and Centennial Puerto Rico License Corp., to orders issued by the Telecommunications Regulatory Board of Puerto Rico regarding the arbitration and approval of interconnection agreements under the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The companies disputed the Board's authority to include liquidated damages provisions, regulate transiting fees, and address Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) traffic categories in the agreements. The district court partially granted and denied summary judgment to the parties. On appeal, the First Circuit held that the Board acted within its authority under both federal and Puerto Rico law, that its decisions on fees and damages were permissible, and that its deferral of specific VOIP enumeration was reasonable given regulatory uncertainties. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment, remanding for entry of summary judgment in favor of the Board.

business & regulatoryfederal power