Puerto Rico Federal Court – Representative Cases

1. Labor Case (discrimination): Carrera v. Silgan Containers, Okaya Inc, Civil No. 19-1828 (D.P.R Feb. 4, 2022). Plaintiff filed an age discrimination claim for failure to hire. After discovery concluded, our client, Okaya Inc., filed a motion for summary judgment. The District Court entered an Opinion and Order dismissing all claims against Okaya. Plaintiff appealed and the case is pending the First Circuit.

2. Commercial/Arbitrage/Contracts: Peña-Rodríguez vs Doctor’s Associates, Civil No. 19-02138. Both parties filed separate claims. Our client Plaintiff Peña-Rodríguez filed a claim to set aside the Award issued by the Arbitrator and defendant filed a claim to enforce the award. Both parties motion to dismiss and the Court grant in part and denied in part. In sum, the Court set aside the award as to two franchise and affirmed as to the other one. Despite we mostly prevailed, Plaintiff appealed to the First Circuit only the affirmation’s decision. The appeal is pending the First Circuit.

3. Labor Case: Luis Rivera v. Pfizer 2011 WL 903987: Plaintiff prevailed on motion to dismiss. 

4. Maritime Case (Boat collusion @ Parguera): Vélez Amador v. Torres, Civil 17-2050 (D.P.R. Mar. 31, 2021). Torres filed a motion for summary judgment, our client, Vélez Amador, opposed and the District Court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

5. Copyright infringement case: E-Steps LLC v. ALF, et als, 2019 @L9834429) Plaintiff filed a Federal Complaint against our client, America’s Leading Finance, LLC (“ALF”), Traksecure, Corp. (“Traksecure”), and employees and executives of each company for copyright infringement, violations of the Defense Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), and claims under Puerto Rican law. The claims relate to “Total Control GPS,” a vehicle tracking software program that plaintiff developed and that was allegedly copied by defendants. ALF filed a motion to dismiss claiming that plaintiff failed to state  a valid claim for copyright infringement under FRCP 12(b)(6), and that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the DTSA claim under FRCP 12(b)(1). The District Court entered an Opinion and Order dismissing all claims.

6. Copyright infringement case: E-Steps LLC v. ALF, et als, Civil No. 20-01245. Plaintiff filed a second case claiming copyright infringement, trade secrets misappropriation, computer fraud and abuse act, breach of contract tortious interference. ALF immediately moved to file a motion to dismiss and the District Court dismissed all counts except one. 

7. Banking Law: González Camacho v. BPPR, 2018 WL 1605946. Plaintiffs filed a class action suit against BPPR, Operating Partners and other banks. They alleged that they “have been subject to illegitimate foreclosures or sought modifications of payment on their individual mortgage loans through their mortgage servicers of Defendants. Plaintiffs contacted Defendants in an attempt to reduce their loan payments due to a reduction of job hours which affected their payment capacity. They continued alleging that the Defendants allegedly explained to Plaintiffs that they would submit Plaintiffs to a loss mitigation process which would make Plaintiffs eligible to make reduced monthly payments during a three-month trial period. Plaintiffs alleged they complied with the reduced payments but were still harassed by Defendants for delinquency of their payments. Plaintiffs assert that their rights under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) were not acknowledged. The HAMP program provided a mechanism to stay any foreclosure proceedings and help Plaintiffs fulfill the promise of smaller loan payments. Plaintiffs thus claimed that Defendants’ failure to honor the HAMP program provisions left them “financially devastated.” We filed on behalf of Operating Partners a motion to dismiss mainly based on the following allegations: Plaintiffs’ failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted; OPC was improperly joined under Rule 20(a)(1); there is no standing to bring a claim against OPC; and Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint failed to comply with Rule 8(a)(2), Rule 9(b), 10(b). Furthermore, OPC claimed, that while it was included in the caption as a Defendant, Plaintiffs failed to state a single fact to support a claim against OPC. The Court entered an Opinion and Order granting our motion to dismiss and other motion from different defendants and dismissed the whole case.

8. Banking Law case: Ramos González v. First Bank of PR, BPPR, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144525. BPPR filed a motion to dismiss stating that Plaintiff lack a cause of action under RESPA, 38 CFR §36 and should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The Federal District Court dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff’s Complaint against BPPR.

9. Banking Law case: Bautista Cayman Asset Co v. Reliance Mfg, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8375, dismissed a counterclaim filed by defendants for failure to comply with FIRREA.

10. Banking Law case: Condado 3 CFL, LLC v. Luis Ramón Reyes Trinidad, Civil No. 17-1104 (FAB). Condado filed a complaint for collection of monies and execution of mortgages. Condado filed a motion for summary judgment and the PR Federal Court entered an Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff’s motion and solved that Condado has standing to sue, the mortgage note is duly endorsed, BPPR is not an indispensable party and ordered the foreclosure of the property.

11. Social Security Case: Luis Soler v. Commissioner of Social Security, 10-1775 (CVR) (Court reversed the Social Security Administration’s decision and granted Plaintiff Social Security’s benefit). Our Client prevailed on the Opinion and Order.

12. Social Security case: Migdalia Nieves v. Social Security, 2011 WL 147894: Plaintiff prevailed on a Social Security case against the Social Security Administration. Our client prevailed on such judgment.

13. Social Security case: Migdalia Nieves v. Social Security, 2011 WL 903970 (opinion and order 11 de marzo, granting substantial attorneys’ fees for prevailing on case). Our client prevailed on such motion.

14. Section 1983 claim: Jesus Natal v. Roberto Beauchamp, ELA, Civil No. 13-1070, Opinion and Order dated August 18, 2014. The Opinion and Order granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Opinion and Order DENIED as to their request to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims under the Fourth Amendment; GRANTED as to their request to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims under the Fourteenth Amendment; DENIED as to their request to dismiss Febus-Marcano’s Section 1983 claim for lack of standing; GRANTED as to their request to dismiss the Conjugal-Partnership Natal-Febus’ Section 1983 claim for lack of standing; DENIED as to their request for qualified immunity; DENIED as to their request to dismiss the state-law claims.

15. Tort Claim. Otero-Torres v. Collazo-Rivera, Civil No. 09-2006 (SEC) (D.P.R. Nov. 2, 2011). Our client, Mr. Otero filed a diversity tort-suit seeking redress for injuries allegedly suffered after co-defendant Federico Collazo-Rivera shot him in the abdomen with a revolver. Defendant moved for summary judgment and the District Court denied it as to defendants Collazo.

16. Tort Claim. Otero-Torres v. Collazo-Rivera, 2010 WL 3087481 at *2 (D.P.R. 2010). Defendant filed a counterclaim against our client (Plaintiff). The Counterclaim asserted that Otero assaulted Erasmo Collazo, and that Collazo-Rivera, Defendants’ son, was left with no other option than to turn his weapon against Plaintiff. Defendants seek damages for pain, suffering, and emotional distress. Our client moved to dismiss that the Counterclaim was tolled. While distinguishing Febo Ortega v. Tribunal Superior, 102 DPR 405 (1974), the District Court agreed and dismiss the entire Counterclaim.