Aluma Constr. Corp. v. P.R. Ports Auth.
| Decision Date | 05 July 2017 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO. 14–1610 (DRD) |
| Citation | 265 F.Supp.3d 158 |
| Parties | ALUMA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. PUERTO RICO PORTS AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Rafael Gonzalez-Velez, Gonzalez Velez Law Office, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff.
Jean P. Gauthier-Inesta, San Juan, PR, Mayra Vanessa Estrella Perez-Valdivieso, Rovira-Rodriguez Law Offices, Coto Laurel, PR, for Defendants.
AMENDED OMNIBUS OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are co-defendant, Puerto Rico Maritime Authority's (hereinafter, "PRMTA") Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 59) and Plaintiff, Aluma Construction Corporation's (hereinafter, "Aluma") Omnibus Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 60).
For the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES PRMTA's Motion to Dismiss and GRANTS Aluma's Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
On August 8, 2014, maintenance services company, Aluma, filed a Complaint against the Puerto Rico Ports Authority (hereinafter, "PRPA")1 and PRMTA under federal admiralty law. The events that lead to the complaint are two claims for maintenance and repair services provided to two different vessels, "M/V Cayo Blanco" and "M/V Santa María", which are property of co-defendant, PRMTA. According to Aluma, those services are unpaid as PRMTA refuses to pay based on their interpretation of the applicable federal maritime and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico laws. See Docket No. 27, p. 2 ¶ 4. Consequently, Aluma argues that both of these claims are overdue, liquid and enforceable. Aluma further alleges that prior extrajudicial collection efforts have been made without success. Id. at ¶ 5.
Aluma is seeking partial summary judgment concerning the claim of $25,000.00 for certain emergency work that was provided to repair the four exhaust systems (mufflers) of the "M/V Cayo Blanco". See Docket No. 27 pp. 5–6. According to Aluma, the work was performed under an emergency verbal order for goods and services, issued by then Executive Director, Eng. Fernando Cedeño, through the executives duly in charge of service and maintenance of the PRMTA vessels. Aluma alleges that PRMTA's officers made a representation that such a minuscular expense did not require a written contract and was within the power of the Director to authorize a verbal order. Additionally, these repairs were performed by Aluma in an emergency basis since they were needed in order to comply with the United States Coast Guard's (hereinafter, "USCG") strict requirements, to be able to provide transportation services of goods and passengers between the main island and Vieques and Culebra as to the passenger vessel "M/V Cayo Blanco". See Docket No. 60. PRMTA submitted its opposition to Aluma's motion for partial summary judgment. See Docket No. 63. Aluma also filed a motion to supplement its request for partial summary judgment. See Docket No. 66.
Notwithstanding, PRMTA is seeking dismissal of the entire claim alleging that it is an instrumentality of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; thus, it is immune under the Eleventh Amendment from suits in the federal court absent its consent. Proper analysis of Aluma's and PRMTA's motions require careful scrutiny of the underlying legal framework.
The following factual findings are taken from the parties' statement of undisputed facts, Plaintiffs' unopposed statement of uncontested facts2 , and supporting documentation. Upon careful review of the record, the Court finds the following facts are undisputed:
1. On January 2010, a verbal order was presented to Aluma, for the performance of certain emergency work, to be provided to the vessel "M/V Cayo Blanco". (Docket No. 60–3 pp. 33–34).
2. "M/V Cayo Blanco's" repair work was ordered and authorized, originally, by the then Executive Director of PRMTA, Eng. Fernando Cedeño, and so it was represented to Aluma, in the person of Mr. Carlos Claudio, by Mr. Arturo Vaello, the officer in charge of fleet maintenance for the PRMTA. (Docket No. 60–3 pp. 32, 54 and 57).
3. Mr. Vaello was the person who originally contacted Aluma and requested that Aluma personnel present themselves at Fajardo, with the necessary equipment, to perform emergency repairs to "M/V Cayo Blanco". (Docket No. 60–3 pp. 32–33).
4. On January 2012, Aluma performed emergency work to the four exhaust systems (mufflers) of the "M/V Cayo Blanco", as required. (Docket No. 60–3 p. 30 and Docket No. 60–8).
5. The required work was approved on the 6th day of January of 2012, by Lieutenant Jeff Manion of the U.S. Coast Guard, Marine Inspection Department. (Docket No. 60–8).
6. An invoice of said work was presented on January 30, 2012 for a total amount of $25,000.00, as previously announced and agreed. Notwithstanding repeated attempts to collect, said amount remains unpaid. (Docket No. 60–7)
7. On December 30, 2011, the United States Coast Guard issued form CG–835 requiring that certain repairs be made to the vessel "M/V Cayo Blanco", prior to allowing passenger transport in the vessel. (Docket No. 60–6 and 60–3 pp. 30–32).
8. On January 2012, said form was delivered to Aluma, with the specific order that the repairs required in the form, pertaining to the mufflers of the "M/V Cayo Blanco", be performed forthwith, on an emergency character. (Docket No. 60–3 pp. 32–33).
9. The emergency work consisted in the repair of the four exhaust systems (mufflers) of the "M/V Cayo Blanco". (Docket No. 60–3 p. 32).
10. During the period of January 3 to January 6, 2012, the repair work was performed by Aluma. (Docket No. 60–8).
11. On January 30, 2012, Mr. Carlos González [representing Aluma] sent a letter to Mr. Arturo Vaello describing the repairs made to "M/V Cayo Blanco". (Docket No. 60–8).
12. The above-mentioned letter, sent by Mr. Carlos González, was received and signed by Mr. Arturo Vaello on January 31, 2012. (Docket No. 60–8).
13. Once the repairs works were finished, the vessel was inspected and approved by Mr. Arturo Vaello, fleet maintenance manager of PRMTA, at the time. (Docket No. 60–3 p. 33).
14. On January 30, 2012, and invoice was issued by Aluma for the emergency repair works that were performed, approved and accepted. (Docket No. 60–7 and 60–8).
15. The total amount invoiced for the work performed, was $25,000.00. (Docket No. 60–7).
16. Photographs of the repair work were taken to evidence that the repairs were made. (Docket No. 60–4).
17. The USCG approved the repair made to "M/V Cayo Blanco" and the vessel was authorized to continue providing transport services. (Docket No. 60–7 and 60–3 p. 32–33).
18. The purpose of the emergency repairs was to qualify the vessel for [USCG] certification. (Docket No. 60–3 p. 11).
19. Those changes were necessary to comply with the "rules and regulations of regulatory services" requested by the USCG. (Docket No. 60–3, pp. 66–67).
20. The USCG had issued an 835 form, disqualifying "M/V Cayo Blanco" from carrying passengers, until certain items were repaired, inspected and approved. (Docket No. 60–3, p. 31–32).
21. There was urgency requiring the vessel back in service, hence, Mr. Vaello contacted Mr. Claudio of Aluma, on an emergency basis, and requested the immediate repair of the vessel's mufflers. (Docket No. 60–3, p. 32).
22. There was no purchase order issued by PRMTA to perform the "M/V Cayo Blanco" vessel repairs; there is no record in the agency of any document to sustain that allegation. (Docket No. 63–1).
Pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution, Federal Courts have jurisdiction over all admiralty and maritime law ( [t]he judicial power shall extend to all cases ... of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction). U.S.C.A Const. Art. III § 2. Moreover, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333 (). "A claim cognizable only in the admiralty or maritime jurisdiction is an admiralty or maritime claim for those purposes, whether or not so designated." Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(h)(1).
It is beyond debate that federal courts have jurisdiction of admiralty and maritime matters because of the recognized necessity of national control over this important commercial area. See J. Ray McDermott & Co. v. Vessel Morning Star, 457 F.2d 815 (5th Cir. 1972). Moreover, in Kossick v. United Fruit Co., 365 U.S. 731, 739, 81 S.Ct. 886, 6 L.Ed.2d 56 (1961), the Supreme Court correctly expressed that maritime law constitutes federal law, displacing local [state] interest no matter how pressing and significant, thus, federal law is supreme because of its constitutional implications, as follows:
... the fact that maritime law is—in a special sense at least, (citations omitted)—federal law and therefore supreme by virtue of Article VI of the Constitution carries with it the implication that wherever a maritime interest is involved, no matter how slight or marginal, it must displace a local interest, no matter how pressing and significant . But the process is surely rather one of accommodation, entirely familiar in many areas of overlapping state and federal concern, or a process somewhat analogous to the normal conflict of laws situation where two sovereignties assert divergent interests in a transaction as to which both have some concern. Surely the claim of federal supremacy is adequately served by the availability of a federal forum in the first instance and of review in this Court to provide assurance that the federal interest is correctly assessed and accorded due weight. (Emphasis ours).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial