Rivera-Muniz et al v. Horizon Lines, Inc. et al, No. 3:2009cv02081 - Document 109 (D.P.R. 2010)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER re 73 MOTION to dismiss filed by Sea Star Lines, LLC, 72 MOTION to dismiss filed by Crowley Liner Services, Inc., 70 MOTION to dismiss filed by Horizon Logistics, LLC, Horizon Lines, Inc., Horizon Lines, LLC, Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico, Inc. The court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants motions to dismiss (Docket Nos. 70; 72; 73). The court ABSTAINS from deciding Plaintiffs' claim for an unreasonable agreement in restraint of tr ade pending certification to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court. All other claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. The court ORDERS Defendants to file a Spanish translation of this Opinion and Order by September 15, 2010. A formal certification to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court shall issue forthwith.Signed by Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi on 9/3/2010.(TAL)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Rivera-Muniz et al v. Horizon Lines, Inc. et al Doc. 109 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 3 4 FRANCISCO RIVERA-MUÑIZ, et al., 5 Plaintiffs, 6 7 v. Civil No. 09-2081 (GAG) HORIZON LINES INC., et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 OPINION AND ORDER 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Plaintiffs, nine domiciliaries of Puerto Rico and their respective conjugal partnerships, bring this class action on behalf of themselves and similarly situated consumers in Puerto Rico against Defendants, Horizon Lines Inc. (“Horizon”); Horizon Lines LLC; Horizon Logistics LLC; Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico Inc.; Sea Star Lines LLC (“Sea Star”); and Crowley Liner Services, Inc. (“Crowley”). (See Docket No. 62.) Plaintiffs allege price-fixing, conspiracy to fix prices, and unfair trade practices in violation of the Puerto Rico Antitrust Act (“PRAA”), P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 10, §§ 257–276 (2009); violation of the Puerto Rico Consumer Class Action Act (“CCAA”), P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 32, §§ 3342–3343 (2009); tortious conduct, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5141 (2009); and unjust enrichment, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 7. (See id.) Defendants severally move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the claims against them. (See Docket Nos. 70; 72; 73.) I. Legal Standard When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must decide whether the complaint alleges enough facts to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In so doing, the court accepts as true all well-pleaded facts and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87, 90 (1st Cir. 2008). However, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, --- U.S. ---, 129 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Civil No. 09-2081 (GAG) 2 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by 3 mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “[W]here the 4 well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the 5 complaint has alleged – but it has not ‘show[n]’– ‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ ” Iqbal, 129 6 S. Ct. at 1950 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)). 2 7 In sum, the court must follow two principles: (1) legal conclusions masquerading as factual 8 allegations are not entitled to the presumption of truth; and (2) plausibility analysis is a context- 9 specific task that requires courts to use their judicial experience and common sense. Id. at 1949-50 10 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56). In applying these principles, courts may first separate out 11 merely conclusory pleadings, and then focus upon the remaining well-pleaded factual allegations to 12 determine if they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Iqbal 129 S. Ct. at 1950. 13 II. Relevant Factual and Procedural Background 14 The court derives the following allegations from Plaintiffs’ “Second Consolidated Amended 15 Class Action Complaint” (Docket No. 62). Plaintiffs are residents of Puerto Rico who regularly 16 purchase consumer goods. Defendants are shipping companies who provide cabotage between the 17 U.S. mainland and Puerto Rico (“Puerto Rican cabotage”). 18 Horizon Lines LLC, a Delaware company, maintains a principal place of business in North 19 Carolina and operates twenty-one U.S.-flagged container vessels between five ports in the U.S. 20 mainland, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, and Micronesia. Horizon Logistics LLC, a Delaware 21 company, maintains a principal place of business in North Carolina and manages ocean shipping. 22 Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico Inc., a Delaware corporation, maintains a principal place of business 23 in Puerto Rico and operates a marine terminal in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Horizon Lines LLC, 24 Horizon Logistics LLC, and Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico Inc. are wholly-owned subsidiaries of 25 Horizon, a Delaware corporation that maintains a principal place of business in North Carolina. 26 Through its subsidiaries, Horizon provides approximately 35% of Puerto Rican cabotage. 27 Sea Star is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Florida. Sea Star 28 provides seaborne transport between the U.S. mainland, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and 1 Civil No. 09-2081 (GAG) 2 other islands in the Lesser Antilles. Sea Star accounts for approximately 21% of the Puerto Rican 3 cabotage market. 3 4 Crowley is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Florida. Crowley 5 operates thirty-five vessels and provides regular marine transportation services between the U.S. 6 mainland and ports in Central America, Puerto Rico, and elsewhere in the Caribbean Sea. Crowley 7 accounts for approximately 31% of the Puerto Rican cabotage market. 8 At least 80% of all goods consumed in Puerto Rico are shipped from the U.S. mainland by 9 sea and air. Because of U.S. law governing cabotage, which imposes extensive requirements for 10 vessels engaged in maritime shipping between U.S. ports, it is difficult for new firms to enter the 11 market. While Defendants presently control 87% of Puerto Rican cabotage, Trailer Bridge Inc. 12 (“Trailer”) services the remaining 13% of the market. Trailer is not a party to the instant case. 13 From 1994 to 2003, rates for freight shipping between the U.S. mainland and Puerto Rico 14 declined by 30% due to overcapacity in shipping services. From May 2002 through April 2008, the 15 capacity of Puerto Rican cabotage has remained unchanged. Rather than increasing capacity in their 16 freight carriage services, Defendants agreed to carry one another’s freight whenever demand for 17 cabotage exceeded the capacity of one of the firms. Since early 2006, Puerto Rico has experienced 18 an economic recession and a decreased demand for consumer products. The volume of Puerto Rican 19 cabotage decreased by somewhere between 8% to 12% in 2006. 20 Since 2003, shipping rates charged by Defendants have uniformly increased by 9%. In May 21 2003, Defendants uniformly set bunker fuel surcharges at about $225 per container, which increased 22 to $280 per container in early April 2005, and increased again to $310 per container a few weeks 23 later. Defendants separately increased their fuel surcharges by $15 in the summer of 2006. In May 24 2007, all three firms increased their rates again by $25. 25 Defendants agreed to allocate amongst themselves customers who require Puerto Rican 26 cabotage. Defendants agreed to fix shipping rates and other fees for freight carriage in this market. 27 In 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted several of Defendants’ officers for violations of 28 1 Civil No. 09-2081 (GAG) 2 federal antitrust laws. Some of these officers have pleaded guilty in a parallel federal criminal case. 3 On October 19, 2009, Plaintiffs initiated the instant case in federal district court (Docket No. 4 1) after the direct purchasers of cabotage commenced their case against Defendants for antitrust 5 violations (see Civil No. 08-1960 (DRD)). Plaintiffs’ amended complaint brings claims in diversity 6 under Puerto Rico law.1 (See Docket No. 62.) On April 9, 2010, Defendants moved separately for 7 dismissal. (Docket Nos. 70; 72; 73.) Plaintiffs opposed the motions. (See Docket Nos. 86; 88.) 8 Defendants jointly replied (see Docket No. 102), and Plaintiffs sur-replied (see Docket No. 105). 9 III. 4 Discussion 10 A. Private Action for Antitrust Violations 11 Defendants challenge Plaintiffs’ antitrust claims on the grounds that (1) indirect purchasers 12 of cabotage lack the necessary standing to sue for antitrust violations; (2) Plaintiffs’ allegations are 13 insufficient to state a legally cognizable claim; (3) Plaintiffs cannot establish the necessary standing 14 under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to bring suit in federal court; (4) the “filed rate doctrine” 15 bars this suit; and (5) the Puerto Rico antitrust statute does not apply to interstate commerce. (See 16 Docket Nos. 70; 72; 73.) 1. 17 Indirect-Purchaser Standing 18 Defendants point to federal precedents that bar indirect purchasers from bringing suit under 19 federal antitrust law. (See Docket Nos. 70; 72; 73.) PRAA is modeled after federal antitrust 20 statutes. Pressure Vessels of P.R., Inc. v. Empire Gas de P.R., 137 P.R. Dec. 497, 509-18 (1994).2 21 Compare P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 10, §§ 258, 260, with 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-2. Although federal 22 jurisprudence has implied special standing requirements into private antitrust actions, see Kansas 23 v. Utilicorp United, Inc., 497 U.S. 199, 207-08 (1990) (rejecting antitrust standing for indirect 24 25 26 1 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), federal district courts have jurisdiction over class actions where the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and any member of the class is diverse in citizenship from any defendant. 27 28 2 For English translation, www.westlaw.com (Enter “1994 P.R.-Eng. 909,547” into search by citation). 1 Civil No. 09-2081 (GAG) 2 purchasers), Puerto Rico explicitly rejects any such limitations, see Pressure Vessels of P.R., 137 3 P.R. Dec. at 518-20 (“We hold that the plaintiff need not establish anything beyond a factual causal 4 relation between the injury and the violation . . . .”). Because Puerto Rico liberally construes its 5 standing requirements in private antitrust cases, see id. at 519, it is immaterial whether Plaintiffs are 6 direct or indirect purchasers of cabotage services.3 Accordingly, this court finds that Plaintiffs have 7 standing to sue under PRAA. 2. 8 5 Failure to State a Claim 9 Defendants contend that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under PRAA. (See Docket Nos. 70; 10 72; 73.) PRAA protects free competition by outlawing monopolization, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 10, § 11 260, and unreasonable agreements in restraint of trade, see id. § 258. Plaintiffs direct the court’s 12 attention to section 2 of PRAA, id., which is modeled after section 1 of the Sherman Act. See 13 Pressure Vessels of P.R., 137 P.R. Dec. at 509-12. To run afoul of this prohibition, defendants must 14 form an agreement that unreasonably restrains commerce in Puerto Rico or any subdivisions within 15 the Commonwealth. Id. at 509. Following federal precedents, Puerto Rico recognizes certain types 16 of agreements as unreasonable per se, such that defendants have no opportunity to justify the 17 conduct. Id. at 510 n.5 (listing price-fixing and horizontal market allocation among “types of 18 conduct that can be deemed unreasonable per se”). 19 Plaintiffs who suffer injury as a result of such violation may bring suit to vindicate their 20 rights. P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 10, § 268(a). Puerto Rico interprets these elements of causation and 21 injury in light of its civil-law tradition for torts. See Pressure Vessels of P.R., 137 P.R. Dec. at 520. 22 Under the civil-law theory of “adequate causation,” a defendant is liable where his conduct 23 “ordinarily produces [the alleged injury] according to the general experience.” Marital Com’y of 24 Luis Valldejuli Aboy & Margarita López Valldejuli v. Jerónimo Corp., 3 P.R. Offic. Trans. 179, 186 25 (1974) (quoting J. Santos Briz, Derecho de Daños, in Editorial Revista de Derecho Privado 215 26 27 3 28 For cases in diversity, this court must defer to the decisions of the Puerto Rico Supreme Court on matters relating to Puerto Rico law. See Rodríguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 570 F.3d 402, 406 (1st Cir. 2009). 1 Civil No. 09-2081 (GAG) 2 (1963)). 6 3 Plaintiffs accuse Defendants of conspiring to fix prices and allocate customers of maritime 4 cabotage. (See Docket No. 62 at 14-25.) Plaintiffs allegedly suffered indirect harm as consumers 5 of goods because Defendants’ anticompetitive conduct elevated the prices of goods that they shipped 6 to Puerto Rico. (See id. at 28-29.) As price-fixing and market allocation are unreasonable 7 agreements as a matter of law, see Pressure Vessels of P.R., 137 P.R. Dec. at 510 n.5, the relevant 8 inquiry is whether Defendants’ conduct caused the harm allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs.4 9 Under federal law, Puerto Rican cabotage is restricted to shipping firms who meet stringent 10 requirements for crew members’ citizenship, citizenship of vessels’ owners, and construction of 11 vessels within the United States. See 46 U.S.C. §§ 8103, 12101–12152. According to Plaintiffs, 12 the law in practice limits competition to four firms because of the difficulty for new entrants to enter 13 into the relevant market. (See Docket No. 62 at 11-12.) At present, Defendants control 87% of the 14 local cabotage market. Although Trailer conceivably provides alternate transportation and serves 15 14% of the market, shipping rates allegedly increased despite Trailer’s participation in the market. 16 (See Docket No. 62 at 22-23.) As competition by Trailer apparently failed to moderate freight 17 prices, it is plausible that consumers like Plaintiffs purchased consumer goods at elevated prices 18 because of supracompetitive shipping rates. While pricing of consumer goods is subject to myriad 19 influences besides shipping costs, the court is unable to say at this stage that Plaintiffs suffered no 20 harm from Defendants’ alleged conduct. Therefore, the court finds that Plaintiffs state a legally 21 cognizable claim for relief under P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 10, § 258. 3. 22 23 Standing Under Article III Besides contesting Plaintiffs’ standing to sue under antitrust law, Defendants challenge 24 25 26 27 28 4 Defendants point to recent federal precedents dismissing antitrust actions for failure to allege a plausible agreement in restraint of trade. (See Docket Nos. 72; 73.) In Twombly, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the complaint failed to allege sufficient circumstantial facts to infer the existence of an illegal agreement. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 553-70 (2007). The Court held that a mere allegation of consciously parallel conduct between defendants and scant additional details are not enough to establish such an agreement. Id. at 556-57. By contrast, in the instant case, Plaintiffs refer to direct evidence of Defendants’ criminal conspiracy to engage in a pricesetting cartel. (See Docket No. 62 at 14-21.) Accordingly, Defendants’ reliance on Twombly is unavailing. 1 Civil No. 09-2081 (GAG) 2 Plaintiffs’ standing to invoke federal jurisdiction under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. (See 3 Docket Nos. 70; 72; 73.) 4 [T]o satisfy Article III’s standing requirements, a plaintiff must show (1) it has suffered an “injury in fact” that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000). 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 7 The foregoing analysis of the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ pleadings with respect to their claim under the PRAA applies with equal force here. Therefore, Plaintiffs have shown an injury that is fairly traceable to Defendants’ anticompetitive conduct. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ alleged injury is redressible by monetary recovery from Defendants. Accordingly, the court finds that Plaintiffs may invoke federal judicial power. 12 4. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Filed Rate Doctrine Defendants argue that the filed rate doctrine bars this lawsuit. (See Docket Nos. 70; 72; 73.) Under this doctrine, a carrier engaged in maritime shipping may not be held liable in a private federal antitrust action when the carrier charges rates for freight that are consistent with approved rates filed with a relevant federal regulatory commission. U.S. Navigation Co. v. Cunard S.S. Co., 284 U.S. 474, 480-86 (1932). The reasonableness of such filed rates “is within the exclusive preliminary jurisdiction” of the relevant commission. Id. at 485. The U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed the continuing vitality of the doctrine under federal antitrust law. See, e.g., Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Cent. Office Tel., Inc., 524 U.S. 214, 221-23 (1998). The First Circuit has not squarely decided whether the filed rate doctrine applies where a defendant’s rates deviated from the filed rate. See Town of Norwood v. New Eng. Power Co., 202 F.3d 408, 419-20 (1st Cir. 2000) (noting that filed rate doctrine may apply where agency actually ruled on a rate). However, the Ninth Circuit has suggested that the doctrine does not apply under such circumstances. See E. & J. Gallo Winery v. EnCana Corp., 503 F.3d 1027, 1048 (9th Cir. 2007) (declining to extend filed rate doctrine to rates that were not approved by federal agency). Even if rates are subject to the supervision of a federal regulatory body, a defendant may only 1 Civil No. 09-2081 (GAG) 2 raise this argument as an affirmative defense. See id. at 1039 n.11 (noting that filed rate doctrine 3 is typically raised as affirmative defense in private antitrust litigation). The federal district court may 4 not dismiss a complaint on the basis of an affirmative defense unless the defense is apparent from 5 the face of the complaint itself. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215-16 (2007). 8 6 In the case at bar, Plaintiffs’ complaint does not mention whether Defendants filed their 7 shipping rates with federal regulatory bodies. (See Docket No. 62.) Therefore, the court has no 8 basis to determine whether a relevant federal agency approved Defendants’ rates. Accordingly, the 9 court cannot apply the filed rate doctrine to bar Plaintiff’s claim at this juncture.5 See Jones v. Bock, 10 549 U.S. at 215-16; E. & J. Gallo Winery, 503 F.3d at 1039 n.11, 1048. 5. 11 Intrastate Commerce 12 Citing the text of PRAA, Horizon and Sea Star argue that the law limits its scope to 13 commerce within Puerto Rico. (See Docket Nos. 70; 73.) The statute outlaws “[e]very contract, 14 combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in unreasonable restraint of trade or 15 commerce in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or in any section thereof,” P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 10, 16 § 258, and monopolization and conspiracies to monopolize “any part of the trade or commerce in 17 the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or in any section thereof,” id. § 260. 18 The court finds no decisions in Puerto Rico limiting the application of this statute to 19 intrastate commerce. In light of the liberal construction of the standing requirements under PRAA, 20 see Pressure Vessels of P.R., 137 P.R. Dec. at 518-20, it is entirely possible that Puerto Rico courts 21 would apply the statute to regulate interstate commerce. However, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court 22 has not expressed its opinion on this issue, which is dispositive of the instant case, and which may 23 have portentous ramifications for interstate commerce with Puerto Rico. Because the territorial 24 25 5 26 27 28 In support of dismissal, Defendants point to a similar case in another federal district. (See Docket Nos. 70; 72; 73.) In that case, the district court dismissed the complaint for the plaintiffs’ failure to plead the inapplicability of the filed rate doctrine, without inquiring into the consistency of charged rates with filed rates. See In re Hawaiian & Guamanian Cabotage Antitrust Litig., 647 F. Supp. 2d 1250, 1265-67 (W .D. W ash. 2009). That decision appears to conflict with the controlling precedent in its circuit, which does not apply the doctrine if the rates at issue have not been approved by a relevant federal agency. See E. & J. Gallo W inery v. EnCana Corp., 503 F.3d 1027, 1048 (9th Cir. 2007). 9 1 Civil No. 09-2081 (GAG) 2 scope of PRAA is a paramount matter of public policy for Puerto Rico, this court finds that 3 certification of the question to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court is the proper course. See P.R. Laws 4 Ann. tit. 4, app. XXI-A R. 23 (1996) (authorizing Puerto Rico Supreme Court to entertain 5 certification of questions from other jurisdictions); Romero v. Colegio de Abogados de P.R., 204 6 F.3d 291, 305-06 (1st Cir. 2000) (ordering federal district court to certify question to Puerto Rico 7 Supreme Court to avoid unnecessary resolution of unsettled matter of Commonwealth law). 8 B. Class Action Statute 9 Horizon and Sea Star argue that Plaintiffs may not bring suit under the CCAA itself because 10 the statute does not create substantive rights. (See Docket Nos. 70; 73.) CCAA permits private class 11 action lawsuits to recover for antitrust violations. See P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 10, § 3342. The First 12 Circuit has held, however, that CCAA does not create substantive rights and therefore cannot be the 13 basis for an independent cause of action. Díaz-Ramos v. Hyundai Motor Co., 501 F.3d 12, 15-16 14 (1st Cir. 2007). Rather, it is a procedural device that enables a plaintiff to sue on behalf of a class 15 of similarly situated persons and himself to vindicate substantive rights created by other statutes. 16 See id. The court therefore dismisses Plaintiffs’ claim under CCAA. 17 C. Unfair Trade Practices 18 Horizon contends that the provision for private lawsuits under PRAA does not extend to the 19 prohibition against unfair trade practices. (See Docket No. 70.) According to that statute, private 20 plaintiffs may recover for violations of PRAA, except for sections 259 and 261, which pertain to 21 unfair trade practices and mergers and acquisitions, respectively. P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 10, § 268(a). 22 In other words, private plaintiffs may not sue for alleged unfair trade practices. See id.; Díaz-Ramos, 23 501 F.3d at 15, 17. Accordingly, the court dismisses Plaintiffs’ claim for unfair trade practices. 24 D. Statute of Limitations for Torts 25 Defendants maintain that the relevant statute of limitations bars Plaintiffs’ tort claims. (See 26 Docket Nos. 70; 72; 73.) Puerto Rico law authorizes recovery for an injury inflicted through a 27 defendant’s fault or negligence. P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5141. A plaintiff must bring suit within 28 one year “from the time the aggrieved person had knowledge thereof.” Id. § 5298(2). “The law of 10 1 Civil No. 09-2081 (GAG) 2 Puerto Rico treats a person as being aware of all that, having awareness constituting notice, that 3 person would have been likely to come to know through the exercise of care.” Rodríguez-Suris v. 4 Montesinos, 123 F.3d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1997). 5 Defendants contend that Plaintiffs had notice of the relevant facts in this case by either April 6 19, 2008, when the criminal investigation against Defendants’ officers became public, or October 7 1, 2008, at latest, when several of Defendants’ officers pleaded guilty to charges relating to the 8 investigation. (See Docket Nos. 70; 72; 73.) The court takes judicial notice of the fact that criminal 9 investigations against Defendants were reported in the press in late April and May 2008. See e.g., 10 Horizon Lines in Antitrust Investigation, Charlotte Bus. J., Apr. 18, 2008, available at 11 http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/stories/2008/04/14/daily52.html (last accessed Sept. 1, 2010); 12 Feds Investigating Crowley, Sea Star in Antitrust Probe, Jacksonville Bus. J., Apr. 18, 2008, 13 available at http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2008/04/14/daily41.html (last accessed 14 Sept. 1, 2010); Yaisha Vargas, Demanda en Puerto Rico por precios de carga marítima, 15 CentroTampa.Com 16 http://www2.centrotampa.com/ap-espanol/2008/may/08/demanda-en-puerto-rico-por-precios-de- 17 carga-mart1 (last accessed Sept. 2, 2010). Because Plaintiffs are charged with notice of these reports 18 in the media, see Rodríguez-Suris, 123 F.3d at 16, the statute of limitations ran from that time, and 19 the statutory period ended in May 2009. As Plaintiffs did not commence this case until October 19, 20 2009 (Docket No. 1), the statute of limitations bars Plaintiffs’ tort claims. (Associated Press) (May 8, 2008), 21 E. Unjust Enrichment Under Civil Law 22 Horizon argues that Plaintiffs’ claim for unjust enrichment is precluded by the availability 23 of other remedies under Puerto Rico law. (See Docket No. 70.) Under the civil law of Puerto Rico, 24 “[w]hen there is no statute applicable to the case at issue, the court shall decide in accordance with 25 equity, which means that natural justice, as embodied in the general principles of jurisprudence and 26 in accepted and established usages and customs, shall be taken into consideration.” P.R. Laws Ann. 27 tit. 31, § 7. Under this civil-law doctrine of equity, a plaintiff may recover for unjust enrichment in 28 an action de in rem verso. See Snyder v. Champion Realty Corp., 631 F.2d 1253, 1254 n.2 (5th Cir. 11 1 Civil No. 09-2081 (GAG) 2 1980) (citing analogue to P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 7 under Louisiana Civil Code). However, actions 3 for unjust enrichment are subsidiary to other remedies provided by law and is unavailable if the 4 plaintiff may seek other forms of relief. See P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 7; Karon Bus. Forms, Inc. v. 5 Skandia Ins. Co., 80 F.R.D. 501, 506 (D.P.R. 1978). Because PRAA affords a remedy to private 6 litigants who are injured by antitrust violations, see P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 10, § 268, Plaintiffs may not 7 simultaneously seek relief under the theory of unjust enrichment. 8 IV. Conclusion 9 In view of the foregoing, the court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART 10 Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Docket Nos. 70; 72; 73). This court ABSTAINS from deciding 11 Plaintiffs’ claim for an unreasonable agreement in restraint of trade under P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 10, 12 § 258 (see Docket No. 62) pending certification to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court. See Romero, 13 204 F.3d at 305-06 (ordering abstention pending resolution of certified issue). All other claims are 14 DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 15 The court CERTIFIES the following question to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court: 16 Does the Puerto Rico Antitrust Act, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 10, §§ 257–276, apply to commerce between the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and locations outside the Commonwealth? 17 18 The court ORDERS Defendants to translate this opinion into the Spanish language and to file such 19 translation with this court by September 15, 2010, for the purpose of certification. A formal 20 certification to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court shall issue forthwith. 21 SO ORDERED. 22 In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 3rd day of September, 2010. 23 s/ Gustavo A. Gelpí 24 GUSTAVO A. GELPI United States District Judge 25 26 27 28
]]>
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.
