- Labor Law: Blanca Ortíz Escribano v. Nevesem Inc., CC2018-0380. In this case, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint for failing to interrupt the tolling period. The Court of First Instance, denied defendants’ request and the Appeal Court’s confirmed. However, the Supreme Court issued the Certiorari and entered Judgment dismissing in part and confirming in part. Supreme Court solved that Plaintiff’s termination claim was not timely interrupted the tolling period, since filings before UAD do not interrupt. On the other hand, the Supreme Court confirmed the inferior Courts’ decision not to dismiss the salary claims reasoning that while on the hearing conducted before the UAD, Plaintiff made several claims as to her salaries interrupting the prescription period.
- Banking Law/Commercial litigation: Jiménez v. BPPR (former Doral Bank), AC2013-0065 (not published). In this case, Plaintiff filed a tort claim against Doral Bank. During the claim, Doral Bank was extinguished through FDIC and bought by BPPR. Before referring the case to our attention, the Court of First Instance, entered Judgment in plaintiff’s favor which was confirmed on appeal. BPPR referred this case while on appeal. BPPR filed a Writ of Certiorari before the PR Supreme Court. The Supreme Court entered Judgment in BPPR’s favor, reversing Court of First Instance and Court of Appeals’ decision. Supreme Court solved that pursuant to FIRREA no claim shall be brought against Banco Popular for any of Doral Bank’s alleged negligence. The Judgment was entered on August 3, 2016 and dismissed all claims against BPPR.
- Banking Law/Commercial litigation: Deutsche Bank National Trust v. Evelyn Soto Martínez, CC-2019-0626, the Supreme Court entered a Judgment reversing Appellate and First Instance Court. Both First and Appellate Courts granted defendants’ request for litigious credit. Then our client, Bosco Credit, appealed the Judgment before the Supreme Court. While reversing the inferior Courts’ ruling and denying defendants’ litigious credit request, the Supreme Court reasoned that their ruling in DLJ Mortgage Capital v. David Santiago, 2019 TSPR 129, applies retroactively.
- Banking Law/Commercial litigation: Scotiabank de Puerto Rico v. Reyes Rodríguez, AC-2019-065, the Supreme Court entered a Judgment reversing Appellate and First Instance Court. Both First and Appellate Courts granted defendants’ request for litigious credit. Then our client, Bosco Credit, appealed the Judgment before the Supreme Court. While reversing the inferior Courts’ ruling and denying defendants’ litigious credit request, the Supreme Court reasoned that their ruling in DLJ Mortgage Capital v. David Santiago, 2019 TSPR 129, applies retroactively.
- Banking Law/Commercial litigation: Franklin Credit Management v. Carlos Alvarado Encarnación, CC-2019-0629, the Supreme Court entered a Judgment reversing Appellate and First Instance Court. Both First and Appellate Courts granted defendants’ request for litigious credit. Then our client, Franklin Credit, appealed the Judgment before the Supreme Court. While reversing the inferior Courts’ ruling and denying defendants’ litigious credit request, the Supreme Court reasoned that their ruling in DLJ Mortgage Capital v. David Santiago, 2019 TSPR 129, applies retroactively.
