Wehran-Puerto Rico v. Municipality of Arecibo
| Decision Date | 06 July 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ. 99-1216 HL.,Civ. 99-1216 HL. |
| Citation | 106 F.Supp.2d 276 |
| Parties | WEHRAN-PUERTO RICO, INC., Plaintiff, v. MUNICIPALITY OF ARECIBO, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Maria S. Kortright-Soler, San Juan, PR, Victoria A. Ferrer-Kerber, San Juan, PR, for Wehran Puerto Rico, Inc., plaintiff.
Eliezer Aldarondo-Ortiz, Eduardo R. Estrella, Claudio Aliff-Ortiz, Aldarondo & Lopez Bras, Hato Rey, PR, for Municipality of Arecibo, Angel M. Roman-Velez, Elena Mocoroa-De-Roman, defendant.
Before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants the Municipality of Arecibo, its mayor Ángel Román Vélez ("Román"), his wife Elena Mocoroa, and their conjugal partnership (collectively "Defendants") in this action brought pursuant to section 1983.1 Plaintiff Wehran-Puerto Rico, Inc., is a Puerto Rico corporation. It brings this action for money damages, alleging that Defendants violated its right to free speech under the First Amendment and its due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. It also brings claims under Puerto Rico contract law, pursuant to the Court's supplemental jurisdiction.2
The Court reviews the record in the light most favorable to Wehran and draws all reasonable inferences in its favor. See LeBlanc v. Great American Ins. Co., 6 F.3d 836, 841 (1st Cir.1993). In April 1994, the Municipality contracted Wehran to administer the town's landfill.3 In May 1998, the contract was amended and the Municipality took over the day-to-day operations of the landfill; prior to this amendment, Atlantic Waste System, Inc. had been operating it. Under this amendment, Wehran's monthly fees were reduced from $90,000 to $40,000. Wehran provided technical supervision and monitored the landfill's compliance with environmental laws and regulations. As such, Wehran was responsible for informing the Municipality of any potential violations of these laws.4
The record indicates that the landfill has had a history of problems. In January 1996, Wehran, through its general manager Jaime Jaén, sent a letter to Román informing him of deficiencies in the operation of the landfill. These problems included a lack of equipment; inadequate control of lixiviating liquids; failure to cover waste with back fill, resulting in an excessive amount of uncovered waste; poorly transitable roads within the fill; and improper control of erosion, standing water, and sediments. Wehran further informed Román that it had met with officials from the Environmental Quality Board ("EQB") and the Solid Waste Management Authority; that these officials had toured the fill; and that they were disturbed by the fill's problems. Wehran informed Román that the fill was in a critical situation and that it was imperative that the Municipality meet with Atlantic Waste to ensure that these problems be remedied.5
There has been a steady stream of communications on these themes. In November 1996, Wehran wrote a letter to the EQB on behalf of the Municipality. In the letter, Wehran referred to a meeting it had with EQB officials to discuss the Municipality's compliance plan and the fill's operational deficiencies. Wehran informed the EQB that Atlantic Waste had taken some corrective measures, but that the company lacked adequate equipment and personnel.6 In August 1997, Wehran wrote to Román. Román had written Wehran regarding a letter he had received from the EQB pointing out deficiencies in the fill's operation and giving the Municipality thirty days to correct the problems. In its response, Wehran informed Román that the deficiencies highlighted by the EQB — lack of heavy equipment, failure to cover waste, lack of control of lixiviates, erosion — were the responsibility of Atlantic Waste. Wehran also informed Román that it had scheduled a meeting with the EQB to discuss possible means of compliance.7 One week later Wehran and Atlantic Waste wrote jointly to the EQB on behalf of the Municipality. In the letter they addressed a corrective plan that the EQB had devised for the fill and explained the measures that were being taken to comply with the plan. They asked the EQB for an additional thirty days to bring the fill into compliance.8
In May 1998 the Municipality took over as the fill's operator. During the first week after this transition, Wehran wrote Román to inform him that the fill had approximately 1,000 tons of uncovered and uncompacted waste. Wehran warned that the EQB might be inspecting the fill some time soon; that its condition could be found to be in violation of a number of EQB regulations; and that the Municipality risked being fined for these transgressions. Additionally, the improper operation of the fill created a malodorous situation and threatened to be a breeding ground for flies. Wehran urged the Municipality to take steps before the situation became an environmental emergency.9 Four days later, Wehran again wrote to Román informing him that there had been a fire at the fill; that there were five acres of exposed and uncompacted waste; that there continued to be a problem with the odors and flies; and that this constituted an emergency situation. Wehran recommended that the Municipality immediately contract additional heavy equipment to compact the waste and purchase 3,000 cubic meters of fill to cover it.10
The EQB subsequently expressed its concerns to Wehran and the Municipality regarding the fill. In June 1998, the Municipality's city administrator and Wehran met with EQB officials to avoid any fines or penalties. As a result of these negotiations, a compliance plan which Wehran had prepared was agreed upon for the Municipality.11 By August 1998, however, the Municipality had not complied with this plan. Wehran wrote to Román to inform him that there were approximately eight acres, or 9,000 tons, of uncompacted and uncovered garbage at the fill; that there was a shortage of heavy equipment to handle this waste; and that there continued to be a problem with odors, flies, and potential public health risks. Wehran warned that the Municipality risked being fined for violating EQB regulations and urged that action be taken to prevent the situation from becoming an environmental emergency.12 In September 1998, the EQB entered a cease and desist order against the Municipality and proposed a $25,000 fine for violation of environmental laws at the fill.13
In January 1999, Jaén took aerial photographs of the fill and showed them to Román and other officials of the Municipality. On February 2, 1999, the EQB inspected the fill. The Wehran employee who accompanied an EQB official on the inspection told them that the Municipality had not compacted waste for the last two weeks, that it had not covered waste for over a month, and that the Municipality could not handle this problem. The EQB official indicated that he would refer the case to his agency's legal department. That same day, Jaén informed the Municipality's city administrator and other officials about the EQB visit and about the comments the Wehran employee had made to the EQB.14
On February 5, 1999, Jaén took more aerial photographs of the fill and showed them to Román. Jaén told him that the fill's situation was getting worse and that the Municipality was in violation of the law. Wehran also sent Román a confidential memorandum on February 5, 1999, in which it pointed out that there were now 20 acres of uncompacted garbage, that there were 25,000 tons of uncovered garbage, that a bulldozer used for the compacting was not working, and that there continued to be a problem with odors and flies. The memorandum further informed Román that the Municipality risked fines for being in violation of EQB regulations and that the EQB official who had visited the site was referring the case to his legal division.15 On February 8, an official from the Solid Waste Management Authority inspected the landfill. A Wehran employee informed the official of the problems that the Municipality was having. Jaén told Municipality officials about what transpired during this inspection.16
On February 16, 1999, Wehran received a letter from Román informing the company that, due to the inefficient operation and administration of the landfill and due to the Municipality's financial situation, Wehran's contract was being terminated effective immediately.17 Wehran claims that it had no indication prior to receiving this letter that the Municipality was considering terminating the contract.18
Wehran claims that the contract was terminated in retaliation for its speaking out on the landfill's condition. In their motion for summary judgment, Defendants claim that Wehran's speech on this subject was not constitutionally protected and that the contract was terminated for purely financial reasons. Defendants argue that therefore there was no First Amendment violation and that Wehran suffered no due process violation either. They also claim that Román is entitled to qualified immunity and that the claim against his wife should be dismissed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motion for summary judgment.
Summary judgment is appropriate if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial responsibility of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once the moving party has satisfied this requirement, the nonmoving party has the burden of presenting any facts that demonstrate a genuine issue for trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); LeBlanc, 6 F.3d at 841. The nonmovant must do more than show "some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Celta Const. v. Dept. of Housing and Urban Devel.
...that every government contract is, by itself, sufficient to create a protected property interest." Wehran-Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Municipality of Arecibo, 106 F.Supp.2d 276, 287 (D.P.R.2000)(citing Mid-American Waste Systems, Inc. v. City of Gary, 49 F.3d 286, 289-90 (7th Cir.1995); Linan-Faye......
-
Rwm Consultants v. Centro De Gestion Unica
...56 (complaint must include information on the process available and its constitutional. deficiency); Wehran-Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Municipality of Arecibo, 106 F.Supp.2d 276, 287 (D.P.R.2000) ("First Circuit ... reluctant to find due process violations in breach of contract claims against the......
-
Pica-Hernandez v. Irizarry-Pagan
...law and an erroneous discussion of protections offered to municipal employees. Plaintiff first cites Wehran-P.R., Inc. v. Municipality of Arecibo, 106 F.Supp.2d 276, 287 (D.P.R.2000), for the proposition that "[t]his court has found a property interest arising out of a contract when the con......
-
Redondo-Borges v. U.S. Dept., Housing, Urban Dev.
...parties a constitutionally protected property interest. See Boston Envtl., 794 F.2d at 13; see also Wehran-P.R., Inc. v. Municipality of Arecibo, 106 F.Supp.2d 276, 287 (D.P.R.2000) (observing correctly that this court has been reluctant to equate mere breaches of contract with due process ......