Comite Fiestas De La Calle San Sebastian, Inc. v. Cruz

• Decision Date: 13 September 2016
• Docket Number: CIVIL NO. 14-1929 (FAB)
• Citation: 207 F.Supp.3d 129
• Parties: COMITE FIESTAS DE LA CALLE SAN SEBASTIAN, INC., Plaintiff, v. Carmen Yulin CRUZ, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

207 F.Supp.3d 129

COMITE FIESTAS DE LA CALLE SAN SEBASTIAN, INC., Plaintiff,

v.Carmen Yulin CRUZ, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL NO. 14-1929 (FAB)

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

Signed September 13, 2016

Jean Paul Vissepo-Garriga, Vissepo Law Group, P.S.C., Jane A. Becker-Whitaker, Jane Becker Whitaker, PSC, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff.

Hector Benitez-Arraiza, Giselle M. Martinez-Velazquez, Quinones & Arbona, P.S.C., Patricia Rivera-MacMurray, Hernandez Mayoral Law Office, Salvador J. Antonetti-Stutts, Jose F. Benitez-Mier, O'Neill & Borges, Raul S. Mariani-Franco, Mariani Franco Law Office, San Juan, PR, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

BESOSA, District Judge.

Plaintiff Comite Fiestas de la Calle San Sebastian, Inc. ("Comite") brought this action against defendants Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz ("Mayor Cruz") and the Municipality of San Juan (collectively "MSJ") alleging that during planning for the Fiestas de la Calle San Sebastian ("FCSS") the MSJ made libelous statements, contracted in bad faith, used the Comite's trademarks, and violated the Comite's Constitutional rights, including free exercise of religion, freedom of association, freedom of speech, and freedom from political discrimination. (Docket No. 53.)

Before the Court are defendants' motion for summary judgment, (Docket No. 107), plaintiff's opposition, (Docket No. 118), defendants' reply, (Docket No. 161), and plaintiff's sur-reply, (Docket No. 166). Also before the Court are defendants' motion in compliance with the Court's Order at Docket No. 203, (Docket No. 207), plaintiff's opposition, (Docket No. 210), and defendants' reply, (Docket No. 214). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS defendants' motion for summary judgment and ACCEPTS defendants' motion in compliance with the Court's Order at Docket No. 203.

MOTION IN COMPLIANCE

On April 11, 2016, the Court granted plaintiff Comite's motion for sanctions and motion for order to show cause because defendants failed to:

3. Produce the documentation of Buena Vibra Group's compliance with its obligation to send the profits of four kiosks as well as the 50/50 split of the profits from the drinks to the Luis Muñoz Marin Park pursuant to Contract Number 2013-00515.

4. Produce evidence of the creation of a special account to benefit the Luis Muñoz Marin Park as stated in Contract Number 2013-00515.

5. Produce the detailed invoice required by Contract Number 2013-00515 in clause Four.¹

6. Produce all contracts with kiosks in 2013 for the Fiestas de la Calle San Sebastian.

7. Produce copies of the ... Insurance Policy benefitting the Municipality of San Juan, Copy of promoter's license, Workers' Compensation Policy ....

8. Produce evidence of all money paid to Buena Vibra Group, Inc. by the Municipality of San Juan as a consequence of Contract 2014-001507 ....

10. Produce copies of all the contracts, invoices, and documentation as to sponsors as required by Contract 2014-001507 under the "Specific Aspects" section.

(Docket No. 203 at pp. 2, 6-10.) The Court ordered defendants to pay a $700 fine and show cause why the Court should not accept as fact the following statement:

The Municipality of San Juan, entered into contracts with Buena Vibra Group, Inc. for the 2013 and 2014 Fiestas de Calle San Sebastian without first obtaining all required documents and proof of compliance with previous contracts, but refused to enter into a contract with Comite Fiestas de la Calle San Sebastian until they produced those documents.

Id. at p. 11. Following the Court's Order, defendants submitted additional documents on April 25, 2016. (Docket Nos. 207, 214.) The Court finds that defendants have produced all documents in response to Request 4, (Docket No. 207–2 at p. 1); Request 7, (Docket Nos. 207–3; 207–4; 207–5), and Requests 5, 6, 8, and 10 (Docket Nos. 214–1; 214–2). Defendants have failed to produce documents in response to Request 4 because they have not shown that funds were deposited by Buena Vibra Group into the Luis Muñoz Marin Park account. See Docket No. 207–2 at p. 2. The Court, however, does not deem this single omission to be adequate support for accepting as fact the proposed statement of disparate treatment. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS defendants' motion in compliance with the Court's Order at Docket No. 203 and DECLINES to accept as fact the proposed statement of disparate treatment.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

A court will grant summary judgment if "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 evidence about the fact is such that a reasonable jury could resolve the point in the favor of the non-moving party. A fact is material if it has the potential of determining the outcome of the litigation." Dunn v. Trs. of Bos. Univ. , 761 F.3d 63, 68 (1st Cir.2014) (quoting Patco Constr. Co. v. People's United Bank , 684 F.3d 197, 206–07 (1st Cir.2012) ).

The role of summary judgment is to "pierce the boilerplate of the pleadings and assay the parties' proof in order to determine whether trial is actually required." Tobin v. Fed. Exp. Corp. , 775 F.3d 448, 450 (1st Cir.2014) (quoting Wynne v. Tufts Univ. Sch. of Med. , 976 F.2d 791, 794 (1st Cir.1992) ). "When the nonmovant bears the burden of proof on a particular issue, she can thwart summary judgment only by identifying competent evidence in the record sufficient to create a jury question." Id. at 450–51. A court draws all reasonable inferences from the record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, but it disregards unsupported and conclusory allegations. McGrath v. Tavares , 757 F.3d 20, 25 (1st Cir.2014).

Local Rule 56 requires "[a] motion for summary judgment [to] be supported by a separate, short, and concise statement of material facts," Local Rule 56(b), "followed by a citation to the specific page or paragraph of identified record material supporting the assertion," Local Rule 56(e). See Total Petroleum P.R. Corp. v. Colon , 819 F.Supp.2d 55, 60–61, 72 (D.P.R.2011) (Besosa, J.) (denying defendants' motion for summary judgment when movant failed to support asserted facts properly); see also Caban Hernandez v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. , 486 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir.2007) ("We repeatedly have emphasized the importance of local rules similar to Local Rule 56 [because] ... they serve to dispel the smokescreen behind which litigants with marginal or unwinnable cases often seek to hide [and] greatly reduce the possibility that the district court will fall victim to an ambush." (internal marks and citations omitted)).

A record citation is also required to support each denial or qualification in an opposing statement of material facts. Local Rule 56(c) ; Fontanez – Nuñez v. Janssen Ortho LLC , 447 F.3d 50, 55 (1st Cir.2006) (quoting Torres–Rosado v. Rotger–Sabat , 335 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.2003) ("This court has held repeatedly that the district court in Puerto Rico is justified in holding one party's submitted uncontested facts to be admitted when the other party fails to file oppositions in compliance with local rules.")); see also Carrasquillo v. P.R. ex rel. Justice Dept. , 494 F.3d 1, 4–5 (1st Cir.2007) (affirming district court's grant of summary judgment where plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule 56(c) and therefore defendant's statement of uncontested fact—that he lacked knowledge of plaintiff's political affiliation—was admitted).

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff's Counter Statement of Material Non-Controverted Facts contains only one fact that is properly supported in accordance with Local Rules 56(b) and 56(e).² Plaintiff's Responses to Defendants' Purportedly Material, Purportedly Non-Controverted Facts contain only two qualifications of defendants' facts, paragraphs 100 and 101, that are properly supported in accordance with Local Rules 56(c) and 56(e). (Docket No. 131 at p. 13.) "In the event that a party opposing summary judgment fails to act in accordance with the rigors that [Rule 56 ] imposes, a district court is free, in the exercise of its sound discretion, to accept the moving party's facts as stated." Caban Hernandez , 486 F.3d at 7. Accordingly, the Court DEEMS ADMITTED the facts in defendants' Joint Statement of Unsupported Fact, taking into consideration plaintiff's two qualifications.

In reviewing defendants' motion for summary judgment, the Court considers plaintiff's three supported facts in addition to the properly supported facts established in defendants' Joint Statement of Unsupported Fact and Reply Statement of Material Facts, (Docket Nos. 108; 160), and views all facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff Comite as the nonmoving party.

A. FCSS

The FCSS is a four-day event that includes religious, cultural, and artistic elements and promotes Puerto Rican culture. (Docket Nos. 108 at p. 7; 131 at p. 9; 108-4 at p. 12.) The FCSS was created by "Father Madrazo" and revitalized years later by Rafaela Balladares. (Docket Nos. 108–4 at p. 3; 108–5 at pp. 6–7.)

It is held in Old San Juan. (Docket No. 170–1 at pp. 16–17.) Performances are held in the Plaza del Quinto Centenario, Plaza de Armas, Plaza de la Barandilla, and Plaza Colon. Id. The FCSS is known internationally and was promoted at the Puerto Rico Day parades in the 1990s. (Docket Nos. 108–2 at pp. 4–6; 108–8 at p. 10; 108 at pp. 11–12; 131 at p. 12.) A separate festival, also called FCSS, has been held in Miami for three or four years. (Docket No. 108–8 at p. 9.)

B. The Comite

Doña Rafaela Valladares was the coordinator of a group named Vecinos de la Calle San Sebastian ("Vecinos"). (Docket Nos. 108–5 at p. 3; 108–11 at p. 4.) Pursuant to the laws of Puerto Rico, the Comite was incorporated as a non-profit corporation on August 14, 2006. (Docket No. 108–14.) It is unknown whether Vecinos changed its name to the Comite or whether the Comite is a new corporation. (Docket Nos. 108 at p. 2; 131 at p. 3; 108–11 at p. 4.) Vecinos and the...