The case involved plaintiff Loyda Sanchez-Figueroa and her family suing her former employer, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, under the ADA for failing to provide reasonable accommodations for her emotional disorder (diagnosed as a mixed situational disorder) and under Title VII for race-based discrimination. The court granted the bank's motion for summary judgment, dismissing both claims. It found that Sanchez did not qualify as disabled under the ADA because her condition was not permanent and did not substantially limit major life activities, that she had rejected multiple offered accommodations and alternative positions, and that her termination after 365 days of leave under Puerto Rico's Workers' Accident Compensation Act was based on exhaustion of the statutory employment reserve rather than discrimination. The court also noted a complete absence of any evidence supporting the Title VII race discrimination claim.
The case involved Don King Productions, the producer and copyright holder of a pay-per-view boxing match broadcast, suing the Comité PPD under Section 705 of the Communications Act for allegedly intercepting and displaying the event to patrons without authorization. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting it had legally purchased the transmission from its cable provider, displayed it only privately to members without commercial or political gain, and qualified for the private viewing exception. The court denied the motion, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the display constituted a statutory private viewing, involved any benefit or gain, and was properly authorized, which precluded summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
The case involved claims by Marta Carrasquillo and her family against officials of the Puerto Rico Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for alleged political discrimination in employment actions, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Puerto Rico law. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs failed to comply with local procedural rules requiring a proper response to the defendants' statement of uncontested facts, leading the court to deem the defendants' assertions admitted, including lack of knowledge of the plaintiff's political affiliation, and that the plaintiffs provided only conclusory allegations insufficient to show political animus as a motivating factor in the employment decisions.
This case involves a plaintiff's efforts to enforce a jury verdict awarding both compensatory and punitive damages against two Puerto Rico government officials in a civil rights lawsuit. After the defendants paid only the compensatory damages, fees, and costs, citing a Commonwealth law exempting it from paying punitive damages, the plaintiff filed motions to compel full payment, arguing that the government had waived any objection by providing legal representation. The court denied the motions to compel and enforce the judgment. It reasoned that under Puerto Rico statutes such as Act No. 9 (P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 32, § 3085), the decision whether the Commonwealth will indemnify officials for judgments is a benefit afforded to the defendants, not the plaintiff, who therefore lacks standing to demand payment from the government; any challenge to the Secretary of Justice's partial payment decision must come from the officials themselves.
The case involves plaintiff Ana M. Hirsbrunner suing her former employers for sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, along with related claims under Puerto Rico law. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the employers did not meet Title VII's requirement of having at least 15 employees. The court denied the motion, finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the defendants collectively employed the requisite number of employees in Puerto Rico, as the plaintiff had presented evidence of 20 employees. The court also dismissed the claims against one individual defendant, Claudia Rajchevich, due to lack of evidence of her involvement.
In this copyright case, plaintiff Fernando Torres Negron alleged that defendants Antonio Rivera and J & N Records infringed his copyrights in songs he composed titled Noche de Fiesta and Bebo por Ti by commercially recording and distributing them without authorization or compensation after he shared the works orally with intermediaries. Following a jury trial that apparently favored the plaintiff, the court granted the defendants' renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law and dismissed related claims. The core reasoning centered on the plaintiff's failure to adequately prove the defendants' gross profits from the infringing phonorecords, including insufficient evidence of non-duplicative revenues, deductible expenses, and specific attribution to individual defendants or tracks, along with standing issues for later distributions.