Confederación Hípica De P.R. v. Confederación De Jinetes Puertorriqueños, Inc.

• Decision Date: 04 December 2019
• Docket Number: CIVIL NO. 16-2256 (DRD)
• Citation: 419 F.Supp.3d 305
• Parties: CONFEDERACIÓN HÍPICA DE PUERTO RICO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CONFEDERACIÓN DE JINETES PUERTORRIQUEÑOS, INC., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

419 F.Supp.3d 305

CONFEDERACIÓN HÍPICA DE PUERTO RICO, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.CONFEDERACIÓN DE JINETES PUERTORRIQUEÑOS, INC., et al., Defendants.

CIVIL NO. 16-2256 (DRD)

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

Signed December 4, 2019

Manuel Porro-Vizcarra, Luz Yaniz Vargas-Perez, Manuel Porro Vizcarra Law Office, Roberto Lefranc-Morales, Martinez Alvarez, Menendez Cortada & Lefranc Romero PSC, Francisco Ramos-Martinez, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiffs.

Peter John Porrata, Peter John Porrata Law Office, San Juan, PR, Thomas M. Kennedy, New York, NY, Axel A. Vizcarra-Pellot, Vizcarra-Pellot Law Offices, Carolina, PR, for Defendants.

AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER

Daniel R. Domínguez, United States District Judge

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs, Camarero Racetrack Corp., and Confederación Hípica de Puerto Rico, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment . See Docket No. 248. Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs, Confederación de Jinetes Puertorriqueños, Inc. filed its respective opposition thereto. See Docket No. 258. Thereupon, a Reply and Surreply were filed by Plaintiffs and Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs, respectively. See Docket Nos. 259 and 269. Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed a Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment wherein they produced an updated account of the damages subject to a reduction as to three (3) additional days of races that were held to compensate for the races that were cancelled due to the jockeys' strike. See Docket No. 272. The Defendants then filed an Opposition to Camarero and CHPR's Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment addressing Plaintiffs' updated amounts and other unrelated matters.¹ See Docket No. 277.

For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment as amended by way of Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment. See Docket Nos. 248 and 272.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The instant case arises of a Complaint filed by Plaintiffs, Confederación Hípica de Puerto Rico, Inc. (hereinafter, "CHPR") and Camarero Racetrack Corp. (hereinafter, "Camarero") against Confederación de Jinetes Puertorriqueños, Inc. and a series of personally named individual jockeys for allegedly boycotting and cancelling horse races that were scheduled for June 30, July 1 and July 2, 2016 in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 - 7, the Clayton Act, and other federal statutes, as the jockeys are not employees but independent contractors of CHPR. Accordingly, Plaintiffs requested a temporary restraining order, a Preliminary and Permanent Injunction as well as damages as a result thereof.

As a result of the arguments set forth by Plaintiffs, a temporary restraining order (hereinafter, "TRO") was issued by the Court. The Court found that a TRO was warranted pursuant to the allegations set forth and applicable law. Accordingly, the jockeys and their respective associations were ordered to immediately desist from any boycott against the Plaintiffs. The jockeys were further ordered to continue riding on horse racing days until otherwise ordered by the Court. See Docket No. 33 at 11.

Upon conducting several evidentiary hearings and upon a careful evaluation of memorandum of facts and law submitted by the parties, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Injunction request. See Docket No. 210. Subsequently, the Court entered an Amended Opinion and Order wherein the Preliminary and Permanent Injunction were granted in favor of Plaintiffs. Thereafter, the case moved to the damages stage. See Docket No. 214.

The Court, however, conducted several settlement conferences in order to encourage the parties to engage in settlement negotiations that would put an end to the outstanding damages litigation. As the parties failed to reach a settlement agreement, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment that is currently pending before the Court. See Docket No. 248. A Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment was subsequently filed by Plaintiffs. See Docket No. 272.² Proper analysis of the parties' motions requires a careful scrutiny of the underlying legal framework.

II. FACTUAL FINDINGS

The following factual findings are taken from the parties' statements of undisputed facts, and supported documentation. Upon careful review of the record, the Court finds the following facts are undisputed:

1. On June 30, July 1 and July 2, 2016 no races were held at the Camarero Racetrack due to the fact that 37 jockeys, members of the Confederación de Jinetes Puertorriqueños, Inc. (hereinafter, "CJP") and Asociación de Jinetes de Puerto Rico, Inc. (hereinafter, "Asociación), informed they would not participate prospectively in any scheduled races after June 24, 2016. (Docket No. 153 at ¶ U and V).

2. Plaintiffs CHPR and Camarero filed suit against CJP and Asociación³ for the illegal antitrust violation of a concerted refusal to deal by the two defendants associations and the individual jockeys to said entities. (Uncontested).

3. On July 9, 2016, the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO"), based on the fact that jockey defendants have traditionally been considered to be independent contractors, who were engaged in a "concerted refusal to deal" in violation of a Sherman and Clayton Acts. Further, that they were not covered by the "labor dispute exception" as expressed in a similar situation of jockeys versus management of the racetrack and horse owners, San Juan Racing Association, Inc. v. Asociación de Jinetes de Puerto Rico, Inc., et al. , 590 F.2d 31, 32 (1st Cir. 1979) (confirming antitrust injunctive relief as to a "concerted refusal to deal" by the jockeys against management of the racetrack). See Docket Nos. 23, 33, 37, 41, 46 and 113. (Docket No. 33 at 11).

4. The only defendant active at this stage of the proceedings is CJP, as Asociación entered into a Settlement Agreement with Plaintiffs herein. Hence, Asociación is no longer a party in this case. (Amended Judgment dated August 18, 2017, Docket No. 207).⁴

5. After evidentiary hearings held and memorandums by all parties submitted, on November 8, 2017, this Court issued an Amended Opinion and Order granting the Preliminary and Permanent Injunction, and the case was moved to the damages stage. (Docket No. 214).

6. On March 27, 2018, Camarero sent CJP's counsel an updated summary of all damages to be claims in this case, showing total losses of $636,813.00 of which $338,266.00 were caused to Camarero and $298,547.00 to CHPR. (Docket No. 248-4 at 2).

7. During the Status Conference held on March 28, 2018, Plaintiffs informed the Court that they had submitted to CJP an assessment of the damages suffered during the three (3) days of the illegal boycott and Defendant acknowledged having been furnished with the damage report. (Docket No. 222).

8. On June 9, 2018, Camarero sent CJP an Answer to Interrogatory and Production of Documents. (Docket No. 248-2).

9. On May 30, 2018, CHPR also answered an Interrogatory and Production of Documents. (Docket No. 248-3).

10. Camarero expressed in the answers to interrogatory and production of documents that all the evidence regarding the damages suffered was produced on March 27, 2018. (Docket No. 248-2 at ¶ 15; Docket No. 248-4).

11. At the time the Motion for Summary Judgment was filed, Camarero and CHPR filed the damages pursuant to the answers of interrogatory and production of documents submitted on March 27, 2018. (Docket No. 248, Exhibits 2, 3 & 4).

12. On August 7, 2019, the Defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiffs' Request for Summary Judgment . (Docket No. 258).

13. The Defendants, in their Opposition , adduced for the first time in this litigation past the discovery deadlines, that the computations of the damages claimed by Plaintiffs did not include the income received during the three (3) days wherein the races were held in substitution of the three (3) cancelled races. Id.

14. There are no motions in the Court's docketing system that discuss the matter of the substitution races prior thereto.

15. During the Status Conference held on September 19, 2019, Plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily recompute the losses crediting the Defendants with any recoveries received from those substitute races. (Docket No. 271).

16. The substitute dates for reassignment of races as granted by the Horse Racing Board in Case No. JH-15-47 were July 18, July 27 and August 1, 2016. Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.

17. After the recomputation of the losses, taking into consideration the recoveries that Plaintiffs received on account of the three (3) race days that the local Horseracing Board allowed, the losses have been adjusted pursuant to the Court's Order. (Docket Nos. 271; 272).

18. Camarero's loss from direct and continuing wagering was $49,983.00 and $146,160.00, respectively. (Docket No. 272, Exhibit A at ¶¶ 24-28).⁵

19. Camarero's loss for programs sales was $49.00 . Id. at ¶ 36.⁶

20. Camarero's loss for "servicios impresos" revenues was $443.00 . Id. at ¶ 37.⁷

21. Camarero's loss for food commissions was $7,430.00 . Id. at ¶ 54.⁸

22. Camarero did not have a loss of VLT revenues. Id. at ¶ 54.⁹

23. CHPR's loss in commissions from direct and continuing wagering was $49,983.00 and $146,160.00 , respectively. Id. at ¶¶ 24-28.¹⁰

24. CHPR's loss for "servicios impresos" revenues was $443.00 . Id. at ¶ 37.

25. CHPR did not incur in any loss for VLT revenues. Id. at ¶ 56.¹¹

26. The total economic damages caused by the jockeys' boycott on June 30, July 1, and July 2, 2016 to Camarero were $200,822.00 . Id. at ¶ 21.¹²

27. The total of economic damages caused by the jockeys' boycott on June 30, July 1 and July 2, 2016 to CHPR were $196,073.00. Id. at ¶ 56.¹³

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Motion for Summary Judgment Standard ( Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 )

A motion for summary judgment is governed by Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which entitles a party to judgment if "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "A dispute is ‘genuine’ if the...