Colon v. Blades, No. 3:2007cv01380 - Document 209 (D.P.R. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying re 200 MOTION to Stay re: 199 Notice of Appeal filed by Roberto Morgalo MOTION to Stay re: 199 Notice of Appeal filed by Roberto Morgalo filed by Roberto Morgalo Signed by Chief Mag. Judge Justo Arenas on 05/13/2010.(Bayouth, Alberto)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 2 3 4 WILLIAM ANTHONY COLà N, 5 6 Plaintiff 7 v. 8 RUBà N BLADES, ROBERTO MORGALO, MARTà NEZ MORGALO & ASSOCIATES, 9 10 11 12 Defendants RUBà N BLADES, 13 Cross-Plaintiff 14 v. 15 18 ROBERT MORGALO, in his personal capacity and as owner and member of MARTà NEZ, MORGALO & ASSOCIATES, LLC; MARTà NEZ, MORGALO & ASSOCIATES, LLC, 19 Cross-Defendants 20 ROBERT J. MORGALO, 21 Plaintiff 16 17 22 23 24 v. RUBà N BLADES, RUBà N BLADES PRODUCTIONS, INC., 25 26 27 28 Defendants CIVIL 07-1380 (JA) 1 CIVIL 07-1380 (JA) 2 2 3 OPINION AND ORDER 4 5 This matter is before the court on motion to stay proceedings filed by cross- 6 claim defendant Robert J. Morgalo ( Mr. Morgalo ) on May 10, 2010. (Docket No. 7 200.) The motion was opposed by cross-claimant Rubén Blades ( Mr. Blades ) on 8 May 11, 2010. (Docket No. 203.) For the reasons set forth below, Mr. Morgalo s 9 10 11 12 13 motion is DENIED. I. OVERVIEW Along with the motion to stay, Mr. Morgalo also filed two notices of appeal on May 10. (Dockets Nos. 198 & 199.) The notices addressed an Opinion and 14 15 Order entered on April 28, 2010, and an Opinion and Order entered on April 14, 16 2010. (Id.) Specifically, Mr. Morgalo claims that because the Opinion and Order 17 of April 14, 2010, precludes him from presenting the documents requested by Mr. 18 Blades and/or any testimony related to them, the jury s perception of the facts in 19 20 the case during trial will be affected. (Docket No. 199, at 2, ¶¶ 4 & 5.) Mr. 21 Morgalo argues that as a result he will not be able to adequately defend himself 22 against Mr. Blades allegations during trial. (Docket No. 200, at 2, ¶ 6.) He 23 believes that if the appeal is decided in his favor, his participation at trial will 24 materially change since he will be able to present the evidence to the jury in 25 26 support of his arguments. (Id. at 3, ¶ 9.) Mr. Morgalo therefore requests that the 27 court order a stay of proceedings until the appeals are addressed. (Id.) Mr. 28 1 CIVIL 07-1380 (JA) 3 2 3 Blades argues that Mr. Morgalo s motion for stay must be denied because it fails 4 5 to demonstrate that: (1) he will likely succeed on appeal; (2) absent the stay he 6 will be irreparably injured; (3) issuing the stay will not substantially cause any 7 injury to Mr. Blades. (Docket No. 203.) 8 II. ANALYSIS 9 10 As a general rule, interlocutory orders are not immediately appealable 11 because they lack the requisite finality. Torres v. Puerto Rico, 485 F.3d 5, 8 (1st 12 Cir. 2007). However, an interlocutory order may be appealed if it involves a 13 controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference 14 15 of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance 16 the ultimate termination of the litigation. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Arch Ins. 17 Co., 578 F.3d 45, 53 n.10 (1st Cir. 2009) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)). Also, 18 an interlocutory order may be reviewable under the collateral order doctrine. 19 20 Awuah v. Coverall N. Am., Inc., 585 F.3d 479, 480 (1st Cir. 2009) (citing Cohen 21 v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949); Gill v. Gulfstream 22 Park Racing Ass n, Inc., 339 F.3d 391, 398 (1st Cir. 2005)). In order to qualify 23 for review under the collateral order doctrine, the collateral issue must: 24 25 26 27 28 (1) [be] so conceptually distinct from other issues being litigated in the underlying action that an immediate appeal would neither disrupt the main action, nor threaten to deprive the appellate court of useful context which might be derived from subsequent developments in the litigation; (2) completely and conclusively resolve 1 CIVIL 07-1380 (JA) 4 2 3 6 the collateral issue; (3) infringe rights which appellant could not effectively vindicate in an appeal after final judgment in the case; and (4) involve an important or unsettled legal issue, rather than merely challenge discretionary trial court rulings. 7 United States v. Carpenter, 494 F.3d 13, 25 (1st Cir. 2007) (quoting United States 4 5 8 v. Kouri-Pérez, 187 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1999)). 9 10 In this case, stay of the proceedings is not warranted because review of the 11 court s orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) on the collateral order doctrine has no 12 basis in law. It is well settled that the party who is seeking appellate review has 13 the burden of convincing not only the district court, but also the appellate court, 14 15 that the section 1292(b) criteria is met. Camacho v. P.R. Ports Auth., 267 F. 16 Supp. 2d 174, 177 (D.P.R. 2003) (citing Estates of Ungar ex rel. Strachman v. 17 Palestinian Auth., 228 F. Supp. 2d 40, 50 (D.R.I. 2002)). However, Mr. Morgalo 18 has neither requested the certification to appeal the interlocutory orders nor has 19 20 he presented any legal argument in favor of a section 1292(b) certification. Mr. 21 Morgalo has failed to demonstrate that review under the collateral order doctrine 22 is warranted. 23 24 Regardless, even assuming that the court s orders are reviewable it does not change the fact that a stay should not be issued. The Court of Appeals for the 25 26 First Circuit has held that the issuance of a stay [pending appeal] depends on 27 whether the harm caused [movant] without the [stay], in light of the [movant's] 28 1 CIVIL 07-1380 (JA) 5 2 3 likelihood of eventual success on the merits, outweighs the harm the [stay] will 4 5 cause [the non-moving party]. Berberena-García v. Avilés, 258 F.R.D. 42, 43 6 (D.P.R. 2009) (quoting Acevedo-García v. Vera-Monroig, 296 F.3d 13, 16-17 (1st 7 Cir. 2002) (citing United Steelworkers of Am. v. Textron, Inc., 836 F.2d 6, 7 (1st 8 Cir. 1987) (internal quotations omitted)). None of these factors weighs in favor 9 10 11 12 of staying the proceedings. Mr. Morgalo has failed to show that there is a likelihood that he will prevail on appeal. Contrariwise, Mr. Morgalo has acknowledged that the likelihood that 13 14 he will succeed is more improbable than probable. (Docket No. 200, at 3, ¶ 9.) 15 Other than claiming that by not being able to present any evidence and/or 16 testimony related to the documents requested by Mr. Blades the jury s perception 17 of the facts will be affected, Mr. Morgalo has not shown that without the issuance 18 19 of the stay he will suffer any significant prejudice. The fact is that if Mr. Morgalo 20 understands that he is not able to properly defend himself from Mr. Blades 21 allegations during trial, he will still be able to vindicate his rights after a final 22 judgment is entered. See Faigin v. Kelly, 184 F.3d 67, 79-80 (1st Cir. 1990); see 23 also Awuah v. Coverall N. Am., Inc., 585 F.3d at 481-82 (holding that courts 24 25 26 27 28 regularly deny interlocutory appeals in which litigants seek to challenge discovery orders). 1 CIVIL 07-1380 (JA) 6 2 3 Mr. Morgalo has not shown that Mr. Blades will not be prejudiced if the stay 4 5 were to be issued. However, such prejudice will be caused if the stay is granted 6 since it would do little more than insert a monkey wrench into the machinery of 7 the ongoing litigation. Bank of N.Y. v. Hoyt, 108 F.R.D. 184, 190 (D.R.I. 1985). 8 This case is three years old. This fact alone demonstrates that not only will Mr. 9 10 11 Blades interests be affected but so will the public s interest as well, if a stay were to be issued. 12 III. CONCLUSION 13 14 15 16 For the reasons set forth above, Mr. Morgalo s motion to stay proceedings is hereby DENIED. At San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 13th of May, 2010. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 S/ JUSTO ARENAS Chief United States Magistrate Judge

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.