Vaqueria Tres Monjitas, Inc. v. Comas
| Decision Date | 28 February 2014 |
| Docket Number | Civil Nos. 04–1840 (DRD), 08–2191(DRD). |
| Parties | VAQUERIA TRES MONJITAS, INC. and Suiza Dairy, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Myrna COMAS, in his official capacity, as the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and Edmundo Rosaly, in his official capacity, as Administrator of the Office of the Milk Industry Regulatory Administration for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Enrique Nassar–Rizek, Enrique Nassar Rizek & Associates, Rafael Escalera–Rodriguez, Maxine M. Brown–Vazquez, Amelia Caicedo–Santiago, Carlos M. Hernandez–Burgos, Rafael Escalera–Rodriguez, Reichard & Escalera, Jose R. Lazaro–Paoli, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiffs.
Edward W. Hill–Tollinche, Hill & Gonzalez, PSC, San Juan, PR, for Defendants.
Pending before the Court are the following motions: (a) Renewed Motion for Stay of Judgment in Compliance with Court Order filed by the Puerto Rico Dairy Farmers Association (“PRDFA”), Docket No. 2390; (b) Response in Opposition to “Renewed Motion for Stay of Judgment in Compliance with Court Order” (Dkt. No. 2390) filed by Suiza Dairy, Inc. (“Suiza”), Docket No. 2394; (c) The PRDFA's Motion Supplementing Renewed Motion for Stay of Judgment Pending Appeal, Docket No. 2419; (d) PRDFA's Second Motion Supplementing Renewed Motion for Stay of Judgment Pending Appeal, Docket No. 2443; (e) Response in Opposition to “PRDFA's Second Motion Supplementing Renewed Motion for Stay of Judgment Appeal” (Dkt. No. 2443) filed by Suiza, Docket No. 2455. For the reasons set forth below, the PRDFA's Renewed Motion for Stay of Judgment, Docket No. 2390, is denied.
After more than nine years of intense litigation, this case was settled and Judgment was entered on November 7, 2013. See Amended Order and Judgment, Docket No. 2351 (entered at 11:35 a.m. AST). However, the saga did not end with the entry of judgment. On the same date, that is, November 7, 2013 at 2:12 p.m. AST, the PRDFA, an intervener in the instant case, filed a Motion to Stay Judgment, Docket No. 2353.1 A Notice of Appeal filed by the PRDFA followed on November 7, 2013, Docket No. 2354, USCA Case No. 13–2412. On November 26, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (“First Circuit”), entered an Order of Court, which reads in its relevant part:
This matter is before the court on an emergency motion for stay pending appeal filed by the Puerto Rico Dairy Farmers Association (“PRDFA”). Because the PRDFA has failed to elucidate clearly a likelihood of success on the merits or looming irreparable harm, the motion is DENIED. (Emphasis on the original).
On November 8, 2013, Suiza filed a Notice of Appeal as to the Order of even date and entered under Docket No. 2356, USCA Case No. 13–2414. The Order of November 8, 2013, Docket No. 2356, reads in its relevant part:
A partial stay and a temporary restraining order is granted to maintain the status quo of Regulation No. 12, particularly as to biweekly milk liquidation, which was in effect prior to the Settlement Agreement. However, the stay does not apply to the payment of damages to Vaquería Tres Monjitas, Inc. and Suiza Dairy, Inc., as agreed by the parties in the Settlement Agreement. A separate order will follow.
The First Circuit entered an Order of Court in USCA Case No. 13–2414, which reads in its relevant part:
This matter is before the court on the “Emergency Motion Requesting That Temporary Restraining Order Be Vacated” filed by Appellant Suiza Dairy, Inc. (“Suiza”). We have construed the motion as an emergency motion to stay, and, because Suiza has failed to elucidate clearly a likelihood of success on the merits or looming irreparable harm, the motion is DENIED. (Emphasis on the original).
The record of Suiza's appeal, USCA Case No. 13–2414 shows that on November 13, 2013, the Court entered an Order of Court, which reads in its relevant part: “The jurisdictional argument included in Appellant's [Suiza] November 12, 2013 status report is reserved for consideration by the merits panel, and, to the extent Appellant wishes to pursue the argument, it should be included in Appellant's brief.” However, the record shows that the USCA Case No. 13–2414 was eventually dismissed, see Judgment and Mandate, Docket entries No. 2434 and 2458.
The Court is cognizant that both the defendants and INDULAC also appealed the Amended Order and Judgment of November 7, 2013, Docket No. 2354. The defendants filed their Notice of Appeal on December 6, 2013, Docket No. 2413, USCA Case No. 13–2517. On January 28, 2014, INDULAC filed its Notice of Appeal,Docket No. 2459, USCA No. 14–1132.
The First Circuit will hear oral arguments on the appeals filed by the PRDFA and the defendants next March 4, 2014.
“A stay is not a matter of right even if irreparable injury might otherwise result.” Virginian R.C. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658, 672, 47 S.Ct. 222, 71 L.Ed. 463 (1926), quoted in Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433–434, 129 S.Ct. 1749, 173 L.Ed.2d 550 (2009).
In Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433–434, 129 S.Ct. 1749, 173 L.Ed.2d 550 (2009), the Court held:
“A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result.” Virginian [R.C. v. United States,] 272 U.S. [658,] 672, 47 S.Ct. 222[, 71 L.Ed. 463 (1926) ]. It is instead “an exercise of judicial discretion,” and “[t]he propriety of its issue is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case.” Id., at 672–673, 47 S.Ct. 222; see Hilton [v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770,] 777, 107 S.Ct. 2113[, 95 L.Ed.2d 724 (1987) ] (). The party requesting the stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion. [ See the collection of cases cited therein, citations omitted].
The fact of the issuance of a stay is left to the court's discretion Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 139, 126 S.Ct. 704, 163 L.Ed.2d 547 (2005) (quotingUnited States v. Burr, 25 F.Cas. 30, 35 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va.1807) (Marshall, C.J.)). As noted earlier, those legal principles have been distilled into consideration of four factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceedings; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Hilton, [481 U.S.] at 776, 107 S.Ct. 2113. There is a substantial overlap between these and the factors governing preliminary injunctions, see Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, [22–23], 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008); not because the two are one and the same, but because similar concerns arise whenever a court order may allow or disallow anticipated action before the legality of that action has been conclusively determined.
The first two factors of the traditional standard are the most critical. It is not enough that the chance of success on the merits be “better than negligible.” Sofinet v. INS, 188 F.3d 703, 707 [ (7th Cir.1999) ] (internal quotation marks omitted). (Emphasis ours).
On November 22, 2014, the Court held an evidentiary hearing to consider whether an extension of the Temporary Restraining Order requested by the PRDFA and issued on November 8, 2013, Docket No. 2363, was warranted. After receiving the evidence submitted by the parties, the Court determined that there was no reason to continue the stay of the judgment under Rule 62(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Order of November 22, 2013, Docket No. 2388. The Court further determined that there was no irreparable harm, as a perusal of the Final Settlement Agreement filed by the parties on October 29, 2013, Docket No. 2322, shows that “the farmers shall have a net compensation of 80 cents per quart of milk.” See Docket No. 2322–1, Regulation No. 12, page 3, which is incorporated to the Final Settlement Agreement.See also Order of November 22, 2013, Docket No. 2388. In sum, the wording of Regulation No. 12 agreed upon by the parties is clear. Regulation No. 12, Docket No. 2322–2, page 3, provides in its relevant part:
It is also ordered that the government grant the dairy farmers an additional $0.04 incentive per quart for the purchase of feed. Of the price to be paid to the dairy farmers for the raw milk to process fluid milk or other milk products there will only be a transportation fee of $0.025 to be subtracted from the liquidation. This would be the only fee to be charged to the dairy farmer. This order overrides the administrative orders of July 19, 2007 and February 29, 2008 that mandated additional fees to be paid from the compensation to the dairy farmers. This way the dairy farmer will benefit from a net compensation of $0.80 per quart. (Translation).
After considering the parties' arguments and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
P.R. Dairy Farmers Ass'n v. Pagan
...Id. at ¶ 112. See also Vaquería Tres Monjitas, Inc. v. Comas, 992 F.Supp.2d 39 (D.P.R.2013) ; Vaquería Tres Monjitas, Inc. v. Comas, 5 F.Supp.3d 179, 2014 WL 1202150 (D.P.R. February 28, 2014).2. Procedural HistoryAs stated above, PRDFA filed its Second Amended Complaint on December 26, 201......