Rivera v. Puerto Rico Elec. Power Auth.

• Decision Date: 14 March 2014
• Docket Number: Civil No.: 11–2003(DRD).
• Citation: 4 F.Supp.3d 342
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
• Parties: Dario Roman RIVERA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants.

4 F.Supp.3d 342

Dario Roman RIVERA, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants.

Civil No.: 11–2003(DRD).

United States District Court,

D. Puerto Rico.

Signed March 14, 2014.

John E. Mudd, John E. Mudd Law Office, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiffs.

Anthony J. Murray–Steffens, Arturo Diaz–Angueira, Cancio, Nadal, Rivera & Diaz, San Juan, PR, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

DANIEL R. DOMÍNGUEZ, District Judge.

On October 9, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (“PREPA”) and its executives and governing board members (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging violations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–62(d), and for mail and wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343. Therein, Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class: “All consumers of electricity sold by PREPA, both individuals and corporations, who were overcharged by PREPA, as described in [the] complaint, between the year 2007 and the present.”

Pending before the Court is PREPA's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 41) and Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 50). The Court referred the instant motion to Magistrate Judge Marcos E. López on July 29, 2013 (Docket No. 46). The Magistrate Judge entered his Report and Recommendation on February 10, 2014 (Docket No. 63).

In his Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommended that PREPA's Motion for Summary Judgment be denied. Specifically, the Magistrate found that PREPA was unable to demonstrate that the case at bar should be dismissed under the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion. The Magistrate concluded that PREPA failed to presented evidence that the prior state court claims were either actually litigated or that a final judgment on the merits was issued. Lastly, the Magistrate determined that the parties in the state cause of action were not identical to the ones in the instant matter, therefore barring dismissal of the instant case.

On March 7, 2014, PREPA filed its Objection to Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 67) averring that the Magistrate Judge had erred in concluding that claim and issue preclusion were inapplicable to the instant case.¹ PREPA argues that although the substantive state claims were not litigated in state court, the issue of class certification was, thereby warranting dismissal of the instant matter.

On March 11, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to Defendant's Objections to Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 68) contending that the allegations in the instant complaint are factually different from those in the state court proceedings and that “due process precludes a non-certified class action from having preclusive effect on absent parties.” Docket No. 68, at 9.

I. REFERRAL TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court may refer dispositive motions to a United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). SeeFed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see also Local Rule 72(a); Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). An adversely affected party may contest the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation by filing its objections. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), in pertinent part, provides that

any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.

“Absent objection, ... [a] district court ha[s] a right to assume that [the affected party] agree[s] to the magistrate's recommendation.” Templeman v. Chris Craft Corp., 770 F.2d 245, 247 (1st Cir.1985), cert. denied,474 U.S. 1021, 106 S.Ct. 571, 88 L.Ed.2d 556 (1985). Additionally, “failure to raise objections to the Report and Recommendation waives that party's right to review in the district court and those claims not preserved by such objections are precluded upon appeal.” Davet v. Maccarone, 973 F.2d 22, 30–31 (1st Cir.1992); see Henley Drilling Co. v. McGee, 36 F.3d 143, 150–51 (1st Cir.1994) (holding that objections are required when challenging findings actually set out in a magistrate's recommendation, as well as the magistrate's failure to make additional findings); see also Lewry v. Town of Standish, 984 F.2d 25, 27 (1st Cir.1993) (stating that “[o]bjection to a magistrate's report preserves only those objections that are specified”); Borden v. Sec. of H.H.S., 836 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir.1987) (holding that appellant was entitled to a de novo review, “however he was not entitled to a de novo review of an argument never raised”).

The Court, in order to accept unopposed portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, need only satisfy itself that there is no “plain error” on the face of the record. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto, Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1419 (5th Cir.1996) ( en banc )(extending the deferential “plain error” standard of review to the un-objected to legal conclusions of a magistrate judge); see also Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 (5th Cir.1982) (en banc) (appeal from district court's acceptance of un-objected to findings of magistrate judge reviewed for “plain error”); see also Nogueras–Cartagena v. United States, 172 F.Supp.2d 296, 305 (D.P.R.2001) (finding that the “Court reviews [unopposed] Magistrate's Report and Recommendation to ascertain whether or not the Magistrate's recommendation was clearly erroneous”)(adopting the Advisory Committee note regarding Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)); see also Garcia v. I.N.S., 733 F.Supp. 1554, 1555 (M.D.Pa.1990) (finding that “when no objections are filed, the district court need only review the record for plain error”).

In the instant case, Defendant PREPA has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 67). Thus, the Court reviews the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections were made de novo and reviews all other unobjected-to portions only for plain error.

After a careful analysis, the Court finds no “plain error” in the unobjected-to Procedural Background and Summary of Proposed Facts sections of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Thus, rather than repeating the set of facts that pertain to the instant case in their entirety, the Court hereby ACCEPTS, ADOPTS AND INCORPORATES by reference the Magistrate Judge's findings of fact in toto, noting particularly that they remain unchallenged. ² The Court agrees with the Magistrate's determination that Plaintiffs' opposition fails to comply with Local Civil Rule 56 and therefore deems admitted all of the facts that were properly cited and set forth in PREPA's Statement of Uncontested Material Facts (Docket No. 41–10). ³

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment should be entered where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324–325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Pursuant to the clear language of the rule, the moving party bears a two-fold burden: it must show that there is “no genuine issue as to any materialfacts;” as well as that it is “entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Vega–Rodriguez v. Puerto Rico Telephone Co., 110 F.3d 174, 179 (1st Cir.1997). A fact is “material” where it has the potential to change the outcome of the suit under governing law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A fact is “genuine” where a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party based on the evidence. Id. Thus, it is well settled that “the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence” is insufficient to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment. Id.

After the moving party meets this burden, the onus shifts to the non-moving party to show that there still exists “a trial worthy issue as to some material facts.” Cortes–Irizarry v. Corporacion Insular de Seguros, 11 F.3d 184, 187 (1st Cir.1997).

At the summary judgment stage, the trial court examines the record “in the light most flattering to the non-movant and indulges in all reasonable references in that party's favor. Only if the record, viewed in this manner and without regard to credibility determinations, reveals no genuine issue as to any material fact may the court enter summary judgment.” Cadle Co. v. Hayes, 116 F.3d 957, 959–60 (1st Cir.1997). “Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prod., 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250–51, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). Summary judgment is inappropriate where there are issues of motive and intent as related to material facts. See Poller v. Columbia Broad. Sys., 368 U.S. 464, 473, 82 S.Ct. 486, 7 L.Ed.2d 458 (1962) (summary judgment is to be issued “sparingly” in litigation “where motive and intent play leading roles”); see also Pullman–Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 288, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982) (“findings as to design, motive and intent with which men act [are] peculiarly factual issues for the trier of fact.”); see also Dominguez–Cruz v. Suttle Caribe, Inc., 202 F.3d 424, 433 (1st Cir.2000) (finding that ...