Cuevas v. Municipality of Naranjito
| Decision Date | 02 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO. 16-2732 (RAM) |
| Parties | CARLOS RIVERA CUEVAS, et al. Plaintiffs v. MUNICIPALITY OF NARANJITO, et al. Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, accompanied by a Statement of Uncontested Material Facts. (Docket Nos. 75 and 77). For the reasons discussed below, having considered the parties' submissions both in opposition and support of the same, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, only Puerto Rico law claims remain. Given that all federal claims have been dismissed, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to show cause why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the Puerto Rico law claims without prejudice.
On September 27, 2016, Plaintiffs Carlos Rivera-Cuevas, his wife Sullynett Ocaña-Morales, and their conjugal partnership, filed the present lawsuit alleging violations of the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as violations of Puerto Rico law1 against the Municipality of Naranjito and the Municipality's Mayor, Orlando Ortiz-Chevres; Police Commissioner, Pedro Fuentes-Morales; Police Sergeant, Eddie Cruz-Marcano; Human Resources Director, Solimar Hernández-Morales; and the Mayor's driver, Jesús Ramos-Rivera. (Docket No. 1). The individuals were sued in both their official and personal capacities, except for Jesús Ramos-Rivera, who was only sued in his personal capacity. Id. ¶¶ 5-9.
In response, the individual co-defendants in their personal capacity filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Docket No. 19). On their part, the Municipality of Naranjito, joined by the individual co-defendants in their official capacity, filed a separate Motion to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Docket No. 21). Plaintiffs opposed both motions (Docket No. 28) and the co-defendants filed individual replies (Docket Nos. 36 and 37).
On September 30, 2017, the Court issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part the motions to dismiss. (Docket No. 43). Accordingly, only the following causes of action remain before the Court: (1) Plaintiff Carlos Rivera-Cuevas's First Amendment claim under § 1983; (2) Plaintiffs' Law 115 claims against the Municipality of Naranjito and the individual co-defendants in their official capacity; (3) Plaintiffs' Article 1803 claims against the Municipality; and (4) Plaintiffs' 1802 claims. Id.
Following the Court's determination, Defendants filed their corresponding answers to the Complaint. (Docket Nos. 48, 49, and 62). Subsequently, on September 17, 2018, co-defendants the Municipality of Naranjito, Orlando Ortiz-Chevres, Eddie Cruz-Marcano, Solimar Hernández-Morales and Pedro Fuentes-Morales, in their official capacity, filed a Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and an accompanying Statement of Uncontested Material Facts the following day. (Docket Nos. 75 and 77).
Co-defendants Orlando Ortiz-Chevres, Eddie Cruz-Marcano, Solimar Hernández-Morales and Pedro Fuentes-Morales, in their official capacity, filed a Motion for Joinder seeking to join the Motion for Summary Judgment and Docket No. 77 and adding an argument regarding the qualified immunity doctrine. (Docket No.78). Co-defendant Jesús Ramos-Rivera also filed a Motion for Joinder. (Docket No. 82).
On November 8, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their Response in Opposition and Objections to Defendants Statement of Uncontested Facts and Submission of their own Statement of Genuine Disputed Material Facts and Response in Opposition to the Pending Motion for Summary Judgment and Motions to Join. (Docket Nos. 91 and 92). Both motions for joinder were ultimately granted by the Court. (Docket No. 83 and 101).
The case at bar was transferred to the undersigned on June 13, 2019. (Docket No. 104).
A motion for summary judgment is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Summary judgment is proper if the movant shows that (1) there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and (2) they are 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 favor of the non-moving party." Thompson v. Coca-Cola Co., 522 F.3d 168, 175 (1st Cir. 2008). A fact is considered material if it "may potentially 'affect the outcome of the suit under governing law.'" Albite v. Polytechnic Univ. of Puerto Rico, Inc., 5 F. Supp. 3d 191, 195 (D.P.R. 2014) (quoting Sands v. Ridefilm Corp., 212 F.3d 657, 660-661 (1st Cir. 2000)).
The moving party has "the initial burden of demonstrat[ing] the absence of a genuine issue of material fact with definite and competent evidence." Mercado-Reyes v. City of Angels, Inc., 320 F. Supp. 344, at 347 (D.P.R. 2018) (quotation omitted). The burden then shifts to the nonmovant, to present "competent evidence to rebut the motion." Bautista Cayman Asset Co. v. Terra II MC & P, Inc., 2020 WL 118592, at 6* (quoting Méndez-Laboy v. Abbott Lab., 424 F.3d 35, 37 (1st Cir. 2005)). A nonmoving party must show "that a trialworthy issue persists." Paul v. Murphy, 2020 WL 401129, at *3 (1st Cir. 2020) (quotation omitted).
While a court will draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant, it will disregard conclusory allegations, unsupported speculation and improbable inferences. See Johnson v. Duxbury, Massachusetts, 931 F.3d 102, 105 (1st Cir. 2019). Moreover, the existence of "some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not affect an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment." Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 379 (2007) (quotation omitted). Hence, a court should review the record in its entirety and refrain from making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 135 (2000).
In this District, summary judgment is also governed by Local Rule 56. See L. CV. R. 56(c). Per this Rule, an opposing party must "admit, deny or qualify the facts supporting the motion forsummary judgment by reference to each numbered paragraph of the moving party's statement of material facts." Id. Furthermore, unless the fact is admitted, the opposing party must support each denial or qualification with a record citation. Id.
Additionally, Local Rule 56(c) allows an opposing party to submit additional facts "in a separate section." L. CV. R. 56(c). Given that the plain language of Local Rule 56(c) specifically requires that any additional facts be stated in a separate section, parties are prohibited from incorporating numerous additional facts within their opposition. See Natal Pérez v. Oriental Bank & Trust, 291 F. Supp. 3d 215, 218-219 (D.P.R. 2018) ().
If a party opposing summary judgment fails to comply with the rigors that Local Rule 56(c) imposes, "a district court is free, in the exercise of its sound discretion, to accept the moving party's facts as stated." Caban Hernandez v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 486 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2007). Thus, litigants ignore this rule at their peril. See Natal Pérez, 291 F. Supp. 3d at 219 (citations omitted).
To make findings of fact, the Court analyzed Defendants' Statement of Uncontested Material Facts in Support of their Summary Judgment Motion (Docket No. 77) and Plaintiffs' Response inOpposition and Objections to Defendants' Statement of Uncontested Facts and Submission of their Own statement of Genuine Disputed Material Facts (Docket No. 91).
After only crediting material facts that are properly supported by a record citation and uncontroverted, the Court makes the following findings of fact:2
A. The Naranjito Municipal Police Force
B. Plaintiff Rivera's Employment
To continue reading
Request your trial