Carmen Consuelo Cerezo

The case was a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit brought by a municipal consortium employee who claimed his employer retaliated against him after he reported alleged manipulation of program data to inflate compliance figures and secure additional federal Workforce Investment Act funds, asserting violations of his First Amendment free speech rights and Fifth Amendment due process rights, plus supplemental claims under Puerto Rico law. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the federal claims with prejudice. It held that the plaintiff's statements were made pursuant to his official duties as MIS director and interim director rather than as a private citizen, so they were not protected speech under Garcetti v. Ceballos, and that the due process allegations failed to identify any conscience-shocking conduct or protected liberty interest. The court then declined supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed the Puerto Rico claims without prejudice.

free speechcivil rightslabor & employment

The case involved a former adjunct and assistant law professor at the University of Puerto Rico who sued the university and several officials under Title VII for sex discrimination and retaliation, and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for due process violations, after her request for a one-year extension of her probationary period was denied. The plaintiff alleged that comments criticizing her handling of an incident between a male colleague and a pregnant student reflected gender stereotypes and that officials reversed a favorable recommendation after she complained of discrimination. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the complaint failed to state plausible Title VII claims because the allegations did not show discrimination based on sex or protected activity and that the § 1983 claim failed because the plaintiff had not identified a protected liberty or property interest requiring due process protections. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Puerto Rico law claims and dismissed them without prejudice.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

Plaintiff Jenise Canman brought a Section 1983 equal protection claim against the Puerto Rico Real Estate Examining Board, its members, various state officials including former and current Secretaries of State, and Test Innovations Inc., alleging that she was disadvantaged and failed on her real estate licensing exam because she took it in English as a non-local New York native. She relied heavily on a prior similar case from two decades earlier but made no specific factual allegations of personal involvement by any current individual defendant in discriminatory conduct. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that the complaint failed to state a plausible claim under the Iqbal/Twombly standard, that many defendants lacked any connection to the events or were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity in their official capacities, and that the prior litigation did not establish liability for the present defendants. State-law claims against Test Innovations were dismissed without prejudice for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved an employee, Victor Ortiz, who was discharged by UPS and whose union pursued arbitration, resulting in an award upholding the discharge. Ortiz, acting individually after the union declined to challenge the award, sought judicial review in court. The court granted UPS's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the petition because an individual employee lacks standing to challenge an arbitration award under a collective bargaining agreement unless there is evidence of fraud, deceit, or breach of the union's duty of fair representation, none of which were alleged.

labor & employment

This case involved a motion for reconsideration of an order denying dismissal of supervised release revocation proceedings against defendant Migdalia Collazo-Castro. The defendant argued that the arrest warrant issued before her supervised release term expired was invalid under the Fourth Amendment because it lacked an oath or affirmation, and that the First Circuit's rejection of fugitive tolling in United States v. Hernández-Ferrer required dismissal. The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i) allows jurisdiction to extend beyond the term's expiration as long as a warrant or summons issues beforehand, and that the statute does not require the warrant to be supported by sworn facts. It adopted the reasoning of the Fifth, Eleventh, and Fourth Circuits that the Warrant Clause does not apply to such warrants, which often address minor supervision violations rather than criminal offenses. The motion for reconsideration was therefore denied.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a former receptionist at the Puerto Rico Governor's Mansion suing the governor and other officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that her termination after the 2008 election was due to her affiliation with the Popular Democratic Party in violation of her First Amendment rights, along with denial of Fourteenth Amendment due process and various state law claims. The defendants moved to dismiss, contending that the complaint failed to meet pleading standards under Ashcroft v. Iqbal and that the position lacked a protected property interest. The court granted the motion, holding that the allegations were generic and conclusory rather than plausibly stating a claim for political discrimination or due process, as the role was classified as a trust position without expectancy of continued employment. The state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

civil rightslabor & employmentfree speech

The case involves a trademark infringement lawsuit under the Lanham Act brought by Total Petroleum Puerto Rico Corp. against operators of gasoline stations in Puerto Rico, alleging unauthorized use of Total's marks and sale of non-Total fuel. The specific ruling addresses Total's motion for judicial notice that it is a motor fuel refiner and that its trademarks (along with Esso's) are registered with the USPTO, which can be verified via the agency's website. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant the motion in part, taking judicial notice only of Total's status as a refiner and the registration of one specific trademark (#2,131,701), while denying it for the other registration numbers and Esso's mark. The core reasoning was that Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b) permits judicial notice of facts capable of accurate determination from reliable sources like the USPTO database, without any requirement that the facts be relevant to the case merits.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved plaintiffs who refiled federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against their employer, the Solid Waste Authority of Puerto Rico, and its officials, alleging that exposure to hazardous conditions in their workplace violated their constitutional rights to equal protection and substantive due process. The plaintiffs had previously filed similar lawsuits that were dismissed in 2008 for failure to state a claim, and they did not appeal those judgments. The court considered whether the doctrine of res judicata barred the new action, noting that the allegations were nearly identical and that the purported new evidence regarding the extent of the plaintiffs' lung damage did not create distinct claims. The court concluded that res judicata applied because the new complaint did not allege facts that would support different causes of action from those already adjudicated.

civil rightsprocedurelabor & employment

This civil forfeiture case concerned $200,500 in U.S. currency seized from claimant Gualberto Busigó-Alvarez at a Puerto Rico airport, which the United States sought to forfeit under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) on grounds that the money was connected to drug trafficking. The district court granted the government's unopposed motion for summary judgment, dismissed the claimant's interest, and ordered the currency forfeited to the United States. The ruling rested on undisputed facts establishing probable cause for forfeiture, such as a drug-sniffing dog's alert, the claimant's inability to explain the source of the funds, and his plan to transport the cash out of jurisdiction. The court further held that the claimant lacked standing to assert an innocent-owner defense because he did not comply with Puerto Rico's statutory requirements for acquiring ownership of found property under 31 L.P.R.A. § 1956.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves plaintiff Juan Guillermo Pineda bringing claims against his former employers and an individual defendant for unlawful employment discrimination under federal Title VII (gender and national origin) and ADEA (age) statutes, as well as Puerto Rico Law 100 (political, age, and national origin discrimination) and Law 80 (unjust dismissal). On defendants' Rule 50(a) motion after plaintiff's evidence, the court denied the motion as to the federal discrimination claims, the Law 100 age and national origin claims, and the Law 80 claim, allowing them to proceed to the jury, but granted the motion to dismiss the Law 100 political discrimination claim and all claims against LIH. The court reasoned that no evidence established LIH as the employer or any nexus between the termination and political discrimination, which was based only on speculation about the replacement's political ties, so the Law 100 presumption never arose; it also dismissed certain claims against the individual defendant and found the negligence claim moot.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved claims by residents of the Las Gladiolas public housing complex against Puerto Rico government officials, alleging violations of federal housing laws in the demolition process. Specifically, plaintiffs claimed lack of proper resident consultation under 42 U.S.C. § 1437p(b)(2) and a de facto demolition without HUD approval under 24 C.F.R. § 970.12. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing all claims. It reasoned that evidence showed consultation occurred through meetings and plans, and maintenance records did not indicate deliberate neglect or de facto demolition prior to the approved demolition.

civil rights

This case concerns municipal employees in Aguada, Puerto Rico, who were hired under one-year contracts funded initially by Law 52 grants and later continued with local funds; after a new mayor took office, their employment was terminated without a pre-termination hearing. The district court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their procedural due process claim, finding they possessed a protected property interest in continued employment. The court reasoned that neither Law 52 nor municipal law prohibited extending the contracts with other funds, the hiring letters created a legitimate entitlement to the full term, and no evidence showed adequate post-deprivation remedies. It rejected the need to examine state remedies under Lujan because plaintiffs established an existing entitlement to employment. The ruling followed a remand from the First Circuit clarifying the issues for summary disposition.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case concerns a federal drug prosecution in which the government sought to enhance defendant Nolgie Rodriguez-Zamo’s sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 851 based on three prior convictions alleged in an information. After an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate judge reviewed certified court records and found that the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that each conviction existed, was valid, and involved controlled-substance offenses, contrary to the defendant’s claims that two were merely monetary-instrument violations and that the third carried a different sentence. The district judge adopted the report and recommendation, overruled the defendant’s objections, and ruled that the enhancement applies, resetting sentencing for February 5, 2008.

criminal law

This case involves defendant Héctor Gómez-Vega, who was indicted on drug and firearm charges and filed a motion to dismiss the indictment or suppress evidence seized from his Lincoln Navigator, claiming the arrest lacked probable cause and the warrantless vehicle search violated the Fourth Amendment. After an evidentiary hearing with testimony from the defendant and multiple police officers, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation finding that Gómez-Vega had standing to contest the seizure but that probable cause existed based on the totality of circumstances, including informant tips, officers' observations of suspicious activity and a drug transaction, and items recovered during the stop. The district court adopted the report and recommendation in full and denied the motion. The core reasoning emphasized that uncorroborated tips can support probable cause when combined with other facts and that the defendant's ownership and use of the vehicle established his expectation of privacy without affecting the merits of the suppression claim.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves residents of the Las Gladiolas I and II public housing project who sued federal HUD defendants and Commonwealth officials, alleging that HUD violated 42 U.S.C. § 1437p and Fifth Amendment due process by ignoring information they submitted and failing to ensure required resident consultation before acting on a demolition application. Plaintiffs sought judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court denied the HUD defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the claims were subject to review because the statute imposes mandatory duties on the Secretary that provide "law to apply" and are not committed to unreviewable agency discretion under 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2). The decision relied on the standard from Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe and noted that plaintiffs had standing to challenge the agency's actions.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

In this case, forty-one Puerto Rican migrant agricultural workers sued New Tree Personnel Services, Inc., its owner, and several North Carolina farms under the Agricultural Worker Protection Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging that the defendants failed to honor the terms of employment offers made through federal clearance orders. Defendants New Tree and its owner moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, to transfer venue to North Carolina, arguing they had no contacts with Puerto Rico and that all relevant events and witnesses were located elsewhere. The court denied the motion, holding that specific personal jurisdiction was proper because the defendants' submission of clearance orders foreseeably led to recruitment in Puerto Rico, satisfying the requirements of relatedness, purposeful availment, and reasonableness under the Due Process Clause. The court also declined to transfer venue, finding that the defendants had not met their burden to overcome the presumption favoring the plaintiffs' chosen forum, given that recruitment occurred in Puerto Rico and the plaintiffs reside there.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a pro se prisoner plaintiff suing Puerto Rico corrections officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly failing to administer his insulin on 303 occasions between August 2002 and September 2003, which he characterized as cruel and unusual punishment. The court dismissed all claims against defendants in their official capacities on Eleventh Amendment grounds, dismissed Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims because the allegations properly sounded under the Eighth Amendment, and dismissed claims against several individual defendants without prejudice for insufficient allegations linking them to the conduct. It denied motions based on res judicata and collateral estoppel, allowing the personal-capacity Eighth Amendment claims against the remaining defendants to proceed. The rulings rested on established immunity doctrines, the explicit textual source rule for constitutional claims, and the factual allegations in the complaint.

civil rightshealthcarecriminal law

In this case, defendant Miguel Rivera-Hernández was convicted by a jury on a money laundering charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (Count Two) based on extortion as the specified unlawful activity, but acquitted on the underlying Hobbs Act extortion charge (Count One). He moved to set aside the verdict on Count Two, arguing that the acquittal left insufficient evidence to support the conviction since the predicate offense had not been proven. The court denied the motion, explaining that the Dunn rule permits inconsistent verdicts and that sufficiency of the evidence on the money laundering count must be reviewed independently of the acquittal on the extortion count. The court concluded that the trial evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the property involved in the financial transaction was derived from extortion under color of official right. Defendant's sentencing was scheduled for January 24, 2006.

criminal lawprocedure

Overseas Military Sales Corp., which sells cars only on the Fort Buchanan military base in Puerto Rico, sued Puerto Rico’s Department of Consumer Affairs (DACO) seeking a declaratory judgment that it is subject solely to federal jurisdiction over vehicle sales and warranties under the federal enclave doctrine and that DACO violated this by handling consumer complaints against it. The case involved an emergency motion for preliminary injunction and motions to dismiss, with the matter referred to a magistrate judge. The court determined that a prior, factually identical case, Rodriguez-Planell v. Overseas Military Sales Corp., had already been decided by the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, which held that DACO has jurisdiction because the applicable local consumer warranty regulations do not conflict with the federal Magnuson-Moss Act. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal, concluding that the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the suit seeks to re-adjudicate issues already resolved by the highest Puerto Rico court and effectively invites federal review of that state judgment.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case is a civil rights action by a public school teacher alleging that a school director took adverse actions against him—including questioning his early departure from a September 2002 school memorial event, requesting a mental evaluation, and other disciplinary measures—due to his political views as an independentista, in violation of his First Amendment rights to free speech and association as well as due process and equal protection. The essential facts showed the plaintiff attended but left the event due to its perceived political character, after which the director inquired and later documented the absence, while other actions like the suspension and evaluation were taken by higher DOE officials. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the federal claims with prejudice, finding no evidence that the director knew of or was motivated by the plaintiff's political affiliation and that she was not personally responsible for the suspension or referral. The equal protection claim failed for lack of any showing of membership in a protected class or disparate treatment of similarly situated persons, and supplemental Puerto Rico law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

civil rightsfree speechlabor & employment