Freightliner LLC v. Puerto Rico Truck, No. 06-1040 (1st Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3 United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 06-1040 FREIGHTLINER LLC, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. PUERTO RICO TRUCK SALES, INC./FREIGHTLINER DE PUERTO RICO, d/b/a Freightliner Truck Sales and Services; UNITED CAPITAL & LEASING OF PUERTO RICO; LUIS CARRERAS; JANE DOE; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP L. CARRERAS/DOE; JOSE TORRES; JANE ROE; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP TORRES/ROE; MANUEL CARRERAS; MARY DOE; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP M. CARRERAS/DOE, Defendants, Appellants. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Jay A. Garcia-Gregory, U.S. District Judge] Before Howard, Circuit Judge, Baldock * and Stahl, Senior Circuit Judges. Javier LÃ³pez-PÃ©rez and Ramon E. Dapena on the briefs, for Appellants. Richard Graffam and Roberto Abesada-AgÃ¼et on the brief for Appellee. November 21, 2006 * Of the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. BALDOCK, Senior Circuit Judge. Defendants appeal the district court s denial of their motion for preliminary injunction and several evidentiary rulings made during the course of the preliminary injunction hearing. We have jurisdiction to review this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292. Because the district court subsequently dismissed Defendants counterclaim due to discovery violations, we dismiss Defendants interlocutory appeal as moot. I. Plaintiff trucks worldwide. Freightliner manufactures and sells In 1996, Plaintiff and Defendant Puerto Rico Truck Sales, Inc., executed an agreement ( Agreement ) for the Rico. distribution Defendant of Freightliner Freightliner Truck products Sales in and Puerto Services ( FTSS ) later assumed Puerto Rico Truck Sales position in the Agreement. On September 10, 2004, Plaintiff terminated the Agreement with FTSS and on September 13, 2004, it filed a complaint against Defendants for damages and collection of monies. FTSS s Plaintiff based its termination of the Agreement on alleged lack of payment of substantial overdue amounts and FTSS s alleged illegal or wrongful shipment and importation of 18 Freightliner trucks into Puerto Rico. -2- In addition to damages, Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment on the validity of its termination of the Agreement. Defendants counterclaimed seeking damages and alleging Plaintiff s cancellation of the Agreement violated their rights under Puerto Rico Law 75, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 10, § 278 ( Law 75 ), a statute prohibiting a principal from terminating without just cause a distribution agreement with its dealer. pursuant to temporary connection Law 75, order injunction. Plaintiff s with their counterclaim filed Defendants restraining preliminary dissolve In a ( TRO ) and Defendants cancellation motion a motion requested of the and for a for a the court Agreement and enjoin Plaintiff from entering into a distribution agreement with another Puerto Rican distributor. The district court denied the motion for TRO and referred the motion for preliminary injunction to the magistrate judge for a report and recommendation magistrate judge (R&R). issued After a R&R a lengthy hearing, recommending denial the of Defendants motion for preliminary injunction, concluding Defendants failed to establish the prerequisites for preliminary injunctive relief under Law 75. Defendants timely objected to the R&R. The district court overruled the objections and adopted the R&R. In a separate order, the court -3- dismissed Defendants counterclaims with prejudice due to discovery violations, and entered a partial judgment as to those claims. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). appeal Fed. the R. district Civ. Defendants sought certification to court s P. See Fed. partial 54(b). The judgment district pursuant court to denied Defendants request, finding the partial judgment did not meet the criteria for immediate appealability set forth in Spiegel v. The Trustees of Tufts College, 843 F.2d 38, 43 (1st Cir. seeking 1988). review Defendants of the filed district a notice court s of denial appeal of their motion for preliminary injunction and the court s dismissal of their counterclaims. II. Plaintiff argues Defendants appeal is moot because the district court dismissed pursuant to Law 75. We agree. preliminary injunction counterclaim pursuant was to Defendants Defendants request for a specifically Law counterclaim 75. grounded Because in its Defendants counterclaim no longer exists, they would have no recourse in the district court even if we reverse its denial of their motion for preliminary International 325, 331 Longshoremen s n.5 injunctions, injunction. (1st which are Cir. Chaparro-Febus Ass n, Local 1992) (noting interlocutory -4- in 1575, 983 v. F.2d preliminary nature, cannot survive a final order of dismissal ). Thus, Defendants appeal of the district court s denial of their motion for preliminary injunction is moot. Id. ( Because the district court s denial of the preliminary injunction was merged in the final judgment dismissing the case, plaintiffs complaints regarding the preliminary injunction are moot. ) (citations and quotations omitted). In their reply brief, Defendants maintain this court can entertain their interlocutory appeal because the notice of appeal seeks review of the district partial judgment disposing of their counterclaim. Defendants court s waived any dismissal of interlocutory appeal. issues raised on arguments their related to the counterclaim court s We find district in this [W]e have steadfastly deemed waived appeal in a perfunctory accompanied by developed argumentation. manner, not Massachusetts Sch. of Law v. ABA, 142 F.3d 26, 43 (1st Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). Defendants make no mention of the issue in their opening brief and only briefly address the issue in their reply brief without explaining how the district court erred in dismissing their counterclaim or in denying their motion for a Rule 54(b) certificate of appealability. -5- III. Based Defendants upon Motion the to foregoing, Supplement Defendants the Record appeal, with New Evidence, and Plaintiff s Motion to Strike are DISMISSED as moot. We make no comment as to the remaining matters before the district court. -6-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.