Raymond L. Acosta

In this case, plaintiff Rivera sued insurance brokers including ATLASS Insurance Group of Florida, Inc., alleging they breached duties as brokers and a contract to procure adequate marine insurance for his vessel, which sank in Puerto Rico waters after policy changes went undisclosed. ATLASS moved to dismiss the claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction in the Puerto Rico federal court. The court granted the motion, finding that ATLASS, a Florida company with its principal place of business there, had no employees, property, offices, tax payments, or authorization to do business in Puerto Rico, and its limited role as an intermediary forwarding requests from a local broker to foreign insurers did not constitute continuous or systematic contacts sufficient for general jurisdiction. The court determined that the plaintiff's allegations and evidence failed to establish the required territorial connections under Puerto Rico's long-arm statute or constitutional due process standards, leading to dismissal without additional discovery.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involves the final disposition of unclaimed settlement funds from the San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation, a mass tort action stemming from a 1987 hotel fire. After twenty years and multiple attempts to locate missing plaintiffs or their heirs, the court addressed the remaining undistributed funds. The court decided to distribute these funds using the cy pres doctrine to the Animal Legal Defense Fund, a charitable organization focused on animal protection and related legal efforts. The core reasoning is that locating all entitled parties is practically impossible without excessive costs, and courts have broad equitable powers to apply unclaimed funds to the next best public interest uses rather than letting them escheat to the government.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this employment discrimination case, plaintiff Moridia Camacho Acosta sued her employer Harbor Holdings & Operations, Inc., San Juan Bay Pilots, and several individual defendants, alleging sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related Puerto Rico statutes, along with claims for unjust termination under Law 80, breach of contract, and tort liability under the Puerto Rico Civil Code. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing there were no genuine issues of material fact. Applying the summary judgment standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, which requires viewing facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and finding no triable issues, the court dismissed all claims against the individual defendants and San Juan Bay Pilots, as well as the sexual harassment, retaliation, unjust termination, breach of contract, and most tort claims. The court left pending only the gender-based pay disparity claim and certain local-law claims not otherwise dismissed.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

This case involves three workers who sued Cornell University, its National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center, and Spensieri Painting under Puerto Rico tort law for injuries from a 2007 work accident at the Arecibo Observatory. Cornell moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and (b)(6), arguing that the Defense Base Act provided the exclusive remedy and granted it immunity because it had secured workers' compensation benefits. Plaintiffs and Spensieri opposed, contending the DBA did not apply because the work was not public work and that factual issues required discovery or further proceedings. The court denied the motion to dismiss, stayed the proceedings on the DBA immunity question, and directed the parties to file a joint status report by December 15, 2009, regarding ongoing DOL and New York proceedings on DBA coverage.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerns a former Puerto Rico police employee who sued the Commonwealth, the Police Department, and two individual officials, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for retaliation, constitutional due process and equal protection breaches under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and related Puerto Rico anti-discrimination and tort statutes. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing there were no genuine issues of material fact. The court granted the motion in part after reviewing the record and applying the Rule 56 standard, dismissing claims including due process and equal protection while allowing certain Title VII retaliation claims based on disciplinary letters and termination, a First Amendment retaliation claim against one individual defendant, and supplemental local-law claims against the individuals to proceed to trial.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

In Colon v. Mills, the plaintiff alleged that her two-day suspension and termination from employment resulted from sex discrimination, retaliation, and retaliatory harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The defendant moved for summary judgment, contending there were no genuine issues of material fact. The court granted the motion, applying the Rule 56 standard and finding that the plaintiff failed to present definite, competent, and admissible evidence of discriminatory or retaliatory motive, as her complaints did not constitute protected conduct under Title VII and other claims lacked supporting facts.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Diaz Rivera v. Browning-Ferris Industries of Puerto Rico, Inc., plaintiff Jose Manuel Diaz Rivera and his family sued his former employer BFI after his termination from a roll-off driver position, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act based on disability discrimination, the Family and Medical Leave Act, Puerto Rico Law 44 on disability discrimination, and tort damages under Article 1802 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code. The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico granted BFI's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims. Applying the standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), the court found no genuine issue of material fact after viewing the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, concluded that diabetes by itself does not qualify as a disability under the ADA, and held that the remaining claims failed as a matter of law.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff's claims of sex discrimination in her non-selection for a Pit Boss position at a Marriott casino in 2004, plus retaliation after she complained, brought under Title VII and two Puerto Rico anti-discrimination statutes. Defendants moved for summary judgment, prompting the court to examine preliminary evidentiary issues including whether the plaintiff's earlier non-selections in 1996, 1997, and 1999 were time-barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies within the 300-day filing period. The court applied Supreme Court precedent from National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan to distinguish discrete discriminatory acts from hostile environment claims, rejecting the plaintiff's attempt to frame the events as a systemic or continuing violation that would revive the older claims. It further reviewed evidence of the selected candidate's qualifications versus the plaintiff's, along with performance evaluations and supervisor comments, to assess whether material factual disputes existed on the discrimination and retaliation allegations.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved a plaintiff who suffered injuries from a fall on slippery stairs at a federally financed apartment complex in Puerto Rico and sued both the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under the Federal Tort Claims Act and a private management company under Puerto Rico negligence law. The court had previously dismissed the claims against the management company as time-barred. It then granted HUD's motion to dismiss, holding that the United States is the only proper defendant under the FTCA and that sovereign immunity was not waived because the apartment complex was operated by an independent contractor over which the federal government lacked day-to-day control. The court denied the plaintiff's requests to set aside the earlier partial judgment and to remand the remaining claims to state court.

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal power

In this case, the parents of minor Robert Almodovar Howard sued the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, its Department of Education, and a teacher, alleging discriminatory harassment based on national origin under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and a related tort claim under Puerto Rico law, after most other claims were dismissed before or during trial. A jury found the Commonwealth and DOE liable under Title VI and awarded $1 million in damages to the plaintiff, while also finding the teacher liable for negligence and awarding $25,000. The defendants moved for a new trial or remittitur under Rule 59, arguing that the damages were excessive and unsupported by evidence, the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, and other errors occurred. The court denied the motion, holding that the verdict was supported by evidence of severe and pervasive harassment creating an abusive environment, that the plaintiff had provided sufficient notice to officials, and that the damages were justified by detailed testimony regarding the minor's emotional distress, loss of social skills, depression, and related harms without requiring expert medical evidence.

civil rightstorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved negligence and products liability claims under Puerto Rico law by Winston Mendez Montes de Oca, his wife, and children against Aventis Pharmaceuticals. The plaintiffs alleged that Lantus insulin, prescribed for diabetes, caused a cancerous tumor that led to Mendez's death, claiming the manufacturer failed to adequately warn consumers of the risks. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting defenses including the learned intermediary doctrine, lack of causation, and statute of limitations. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint, holding that the learned intermediary doctrine applied because the prescribing physician received the product warnings via the package insert, and the plaintiffs provided insufficient evidence that direct-to-consumer advertising created an exception to the doctrine.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

The consolidated cases arose from a January 2002 aircraft crash near El Yunque mountain in Puerto Rico that killed pilot Alexander Wojciechowicz and four passengers aboard a privately owned Cessna flying under visual flight rules. Plaintiffs, including the pilot's estate, surviving relatives, and the aircraft insurer, sought wrongful death damages and contribution from the United States for prior settlements paid to other victims' estates, alleging negligence related to air traffic control services. After a non-jury trial, the district court issued extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law based on expert testimony concerning the pilot's qualifications, familiarity with the terrain, choice of VFR rather than IFR, use of charts, and ATC procedures and radar services. The court applied Puerto Rico tort law to the liability determinations.

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal power

In Miranda Vega v. Cingular Wireless, the plaintiff sued her former employer and plan administrators alleging improper denial of short-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed plan, retaliatory termination for requesting plan information, wrongful discharge without just cause under Puerto Rico Law 80, and disability discrimination under Puerto Rico Law 44. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, upholding the denial of benefits and dismissing all termination-related claims. The ERISA ruling rested on the plaintiff's failure to submit credible objective medical evidence establishing total disability as defined by the plan, which granted the third-party administrator full discretion over claims. The termination was found to be for just cause because the plaintiff did not return to work by the July 2005 deadline despite clear notice, and the remaining claims lacked supporting evidence or argument.

labor & employmentfederal power

The case involves Evelyn Rolon Machado suing her former employer INCED and related individuals for terminating her employment in retaliation for investigating and reporting allegedly false claims for federal grant funding submitted to the Puerto Rico Department of Education and Department of the Family, in violation of the False Claims Act, as well as for filing a related local civil suit against her and for Puerto Rico tort claims. The court ruled on defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), accepting the complaint's factual allegations as true. It denied dismissal of the FCA retaliation claims against INCED, concluding that the complaint alleged the basic elements of protected conduct, reasonable foreseeability of liability, and resulting discharge, but granted dismissal of those claims against the individual defendants; the court also allowed the supplemental Puerto Rico tort claims to proceed against all defendants.

criminal lawlabor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

In this case, 22 federal police officers employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs sued the United States and various federal officials and entities, alleging that surreptitious video surveillance of their locker-break room at the San Juan VA Medical Center violated the Federal Tort Claims Act as well as their constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, and privacy under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and Puerto Rico law. Defendants moved to dismiss, contending that there was no actionable Fourth Amendment claim, no viable FTCA claim based on Puerto Rico privacy rights, that a hostile environment damages claim was not cognizable under the FTCA, and that certain defendants were improper parties. The court explained that the motion raised both merits issues under Rule 12(b)(6) and subject-matter jurisdiction challenges under Rule 12(b)(1), emphasized that federal courts must independently verify their jurisdiction even if not raised by the parties, and set forth the standards for resolving factual disputes on jurisdiction by considering evidence beyond the pleadings while treating well-pleaded facts as true.

civil rightsfederal powerproceduretorts & liability

This case involved the Gastronomical Workers Union Local 610 and its associated pension and health funds suing Posadas De Puerto Rico Associates, Inc. (d/b/a Wyndham Condado Plaza) to recover allegedly unpaid employer contributions required under collective bargaining agreements. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, ordering the employer to pay $8,126.44 to the Pension Fund and $45,425.63 to the Health Fund plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The ruling rested on undisputed evidence that the CBAs and trust agreements bound the employer to make monthly contributions, submit to payroll audits, and pay any delinquencies plus interest and liquidated damages, with the audit confirming underpayments that the employer failed to raise any genuine factual dispute over.

labor & employment

This case concerned beneficiaries' lawsuit to recover $400,000 in death benefits under a life insurance policy after the insured's death, which Allmerica denied under the policy's suicide exclusion and due to alleged material misrepresentations in the application. The court granted Allmerica's motion for summary judgment, rescinding the policy and ruling that the beneficiaries were not entitled to benefits. The core reasoning was that the insured had falsely answered "no" to a question about prior drug use on the application, that this misrepresentation was material because the insurer would not have issued the policy had it known the truth, and that there was a clear causal connection between the undisclosed drug use and the insured's death from a heroin and cocaine overdose less than two years later. The court also noted the applicability of the suicide exclusion clause but based its decision primarily on rescission for the misrepresentations.

business & regulatory

The case arose from the 2002 crash of a Cessna aircraft into a Puerto Rico mountain, killing the pilot and passengers, with consolidated wrongful death and insurance claims against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act alleging negligence by FAA air traffic controllers and facilities. The government moved for partial dismissal of claims based on the absence of an Emergency Obstruction Video Map at the San Juan CERAP, lack of Maximum Elevation Figures on radar screens, and failure to provide Maximum Safe Altitude Warning services, arguing these were barred by the discretionary function exception to the FTCA. The court denied the motion for partial dismissal, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction only where the exception applied but finding it inapplicable here after reviewing evidence of agency policies, evaluations, and the nature of the decisions involved. The reasoning centered on whether the challenged acts involved protected discretionary functions or were constrained by specific mandatory guidelines, with the court concluding jurisdiction existed to proceed on the claims.

torts & liabilityfederal powerprocedure

The case involved Antilles Cement Corp. suing Aalborg Portland A/S under Puerto Rico's Dealer's Act (Law 75) for impairing and terminating a cement supply contract without just cause, seeking damages after Aalborg failed to meet delivery quotas. The dispute originated in Puerto Rico court but was removed to federal court, where Aalborg sought dismissal based on a contractual forum selection clause designating English courts for resolving conflicts. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, holding that forum selection clauses are presumptively valid and enforceable absent a strong showing of unreasonableness, injustice, fraud, or overreaching. It found that Antilles had freely negotiated multiple similar clauses (initially arbitration, then courts in England), with no evidence that litigation in England would deprive it of a fair day in court or violate public policy. The decision relied on the standards from M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. for foreign forum clauses.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved judicial review of the U.S. Department of Labor's denial of an alien labor certification petition filed by Interior Developers, Inc., on behalf of Humberto Garcia-Romer for a Construction Inspector position. The employer sought the certification as a prerequisite for the worker's permanent immigrant visa, but the DOL's Certifying Officer and the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals found the job's special requirements, including skills in a cost estimate program, to be unduly restrictive without adequate justification of business necessity. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court granted the defendant's motion and upheld the denial under the Administrative Procedure Act, concluding that the agency's decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious because the employer failed to demonstrate that the requirements were essential or properly tied to the alien's qualifications in a way that would not disadvantage U.S. workers.

immigrationlabor & employment