In this case, petitioner Walter Batiz filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence from a prior criminal conviction, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel during pre-trial proceedings and plea negotiations. The claims were that counsel failed to explain the elements of the charged offense and the government's burden of proof, and failed to secure a 15-year plea offer as instructed. After an evidentiary hearing with testimony from the petitioner, his former counsel, and the prosecutor, the court denied the motion in full. It found the petitioner's testimony not credible and unsupported by the record, while crediting counsel's account of negotiations that reduced an initial offer from 40 years to 15 years, and concluded that the petitioner failed to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test for ineffective assistance.
This case involves employees of Puerto Rico's State Insurance Fund Corporation who were demoted from managerial positions after an audit of internal appointments made between 2001 and 2008. The plaintiffs alleged the demotions were politically motivated to replace Popular Democratic Party loyalists with New Progressive Party supporters, violating their rights under the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Contract Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, along with Puerto Rico law. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motion in part by dismissing the Due Process and Contract Clause claims with prejudice for failure to state a viable claim, but denied dismissal of the Equal Protection claim. It also rejected qualified immunity on the Equal Protection claims at the pleading stage, finding the rights clearly established though further factual development was needed, and declined to address the state-law claims.
This diversity case involved plaintiffs from Vietnam who sued Sanco Metals and related parties for breach of contract and damages after allegedly being induced to pay nearly $3 million under agreements to extract steel and scrap metal from a Puerto Rico mill. Plaintiffs sought to annul their contract with Sanco, recover funds, and obtain judgments based on Puerto Rico contract law, tort principles, and unjust enrichment. The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs against Sanco, annulling the contract due to deceit in its formation—including use of a falsified inspection report—and ordering repayment of $2.28 million, while deferring claims against LAREB pending further discovery. The decision rested on uncontested facts showing material misrepresentations and the plaintiffs' inexperience as foreign investors, which supported nullification under Puerto Rico's doctrine of dolo rather than mere performance issues.
This case involved a contract dispute between plaintiff Banks Channel, LLC, a North Carolina company, and two defendant companies from Washington and Barbados, who removed the action to federal court in Puerto Rico and sought to compel arbitration in Barbados under the parties' agreement. The plaintiff accepted the contract's validity but argued that the arbitration clause was inoperable under Puerto Rico law or, alternatively, that arbitration should occur in Puerto Rico instead of Barbados as an unreasonable forum. The court granted the defendants' motion, dismissed the case without prejudice, and enforced the arbitration clause. It reasoned that the Federal Arbitration Act mandates enforcement of a valid, broad arbitration agreement when the claims fall within its scope, that the plaintiff's objections did not address the general arbitration provision, and that forum selection for arbitration is enforceable absent fraud, coercion, or grounds for revocation under applicable law.
The case involved a former employee's state-court lawsuit against her employer for breach of contract and tort claims arising from alleged nonperformance under a severance agreement. The employer removed the action to federal court on the ground that the severance benefits formed part of an ERISA employee welfare benefit plan, triggering complete preemption under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B). The employee moved to remand, contending that the well-pleaded complaint rule barred removal because the complaint made no reference to ERISA. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the severance plan involved an ongoing administrative program, was explicitly designated as an ERISA plan, and therefore fell within the scope of ERISA's civil-enforcement provision, which completely preempts the state-law claims and confers federal jurisdiction.
The case Gutierrez v. Toledo involved plaintiffs suing Puerto Rico police officers and officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments for alleged illegal search, seizure, false arrest, and deprivation of liberty. The defendants moved for summary judgment after discovery. The court granted the motion, dismissing the federal claims with prejudice and state law claims without prejudice, reasoning that there was no genuine issue of material fact and the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the evidence presented and plaintiffs' failure to properly oppose with supported facts.