E.A. Hakim Corp. et al v. New WinCup Holdings, Inc. et al, No. 3:2011cv01232 - Document 46 (D.P.R. 2013)
Court Description: OPINION & ORDER granting 43 Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff's Law 75 claim shall be dismissed. Judgment shall follow accordingly. Signed by Judge Jay A Garcia-Gregory on 6/11/2013. (IL)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO E.A. HAKIM CORP., et al., Plaintiffs v. CIVIL NO. 11-1232 (JAG) NEW WINCUP HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants OPINION AND ORDER GARCIA-GREGORY, D.J. Pending before the Court is New WinCup Holdings, Inc. s ( Defendant or WinCup ) Motion for Reconsideration. (Docket No. 43). For Defendant s the reasons set forth Motion and hereby below, dismisses the Court GRANTS Plaintiff s claim pursuant to Law 75. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND E.A. Hakim ( Plaintiff ) filed this action due to the termination of a brokerage agreement. Plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to relief pursuant Puerto Rico s Sales Representative Act, 10 P.R. Laws Ann. 279-279h ( Law 21 ) and Puerto Rico s Dealers Contracts Act, 10 P.R. Laws Ann. 278-278d ( Law 75 ). WinCup filed for summary judgment alleging that (1) the brokerage agreement between the parties was non-exclusive and 2 Civil No. 11-1232 (JAG) (2) the parties lacked an established relationship that could be deemed a dealership contract under Law 75. (Docket No. 14) Plaintiff timely opposed Defendant s motion. (Docket No. 34) The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant s motion for summary judgment. (Docket No. 42) The Court found that, as Defendant argued, Plaintiff was not an exclusive sales representative, and, as a result, the Law 21 claim was dismissed. On the other hand, the Court found genuine issues of material fact concerning whether the relationship between the parties could also be deemed a dealership contract, and, therefore, denied the motion for summary judgment in regards to the Law 75 claim. Defendant then filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court s ruling on the issues concerning Law 75. (Docket No. 43) Plaintiff did not file an opposition within the term provided by the rules. The Court thus deems the same unopposed. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Federal Courts consider motions for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) if they seek to correct manifest errors of law or fact, present newly discovered evidence, or when there is an intervening change in the law. See Jorge Rivera Surillo & Co. v. Falconer Glass Indus., Inc., 37 F.3d 25, 29 (1st Cir. 3 Civil No. 11-1232 (JAG) 1994)(citing F.D.I. Corp. v. World Univ., Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir.1992)). However, when reconsideration is sought from an interlocutory order (e.g. denial of a motion for summary judgment), the motion is considered as a request for the court to revisit an earlier ruling. See Auto Services Co., Inc. v. KPMG, LLP, 537 motions for F.3d 853, 856 reconsideration may (8th not be Cir. 2008). used to Finally, repeat old arguments previously considered and rejected, or to raise new legal theories that should have been raised earlier. National Metal Finishing Com. v. BarclaysAmerican/Commercial, Inc., 899 F.2d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 1990). DISCUSSION Defendant moves specifically for a reconsideration of the Court s ruling independently on of the the Law 75 nature claim. of the Defendant relationship alleges between that the parties, the same is still ongoing, and thus, Plaintiff lacks an actionable Law 75 claim.1 The Court previously denied this argument, as it was unconvinced by Defendant s cited caselaw in support, which involved the Petroleum ( PMPA ). (See Docket No. 42, p. 16) 1 Marking Services Act Nonetheless, Defendant In the alternative, Defendant avers that even if the Court finds that the parties dealer relationship has been affected, Plaintiff does not assert any claims for impairment in his complaint, as this is a termination claim. (Docket No. 43, p. 6) 4 Civil No. 11-1232 (JAG) moves to clarify this issue and further explain why, after the Court s ruling in its Opinion and Order, Plaintiff is left with no ammunition. Defendant first emphasizes that, as Plaintiff himself admits, their relationship whether or not there was a dealer relationship Plaintiff governed still by Law purchases 75 is still approximately ongoing, the same and that amount of products (since the termination of the brokerage agreement), and with the 5 to 7 % discount (Docket Nos. 14, p. 5; 34-2, ΒΆ 4, 12). Second, Defendant points to Plaintiff s Statements, where he claims that the alleged dealer relationship has been impaired (and that he thus has an actionable Law 75 claim) for two reasons: (1) he no longer has exclusivity to sell Defendant s products in commissions Puerto for Rico, purchases and for (2) his he own no longer account. receives (See Id.). Defendant explains that, since the Court found that Plaintiff was never entitled to exclusivity to sell Defendant s products as a sales representative in Puerto Rico, (see Docket No. 42), the only possible impairment to their ongoing relationship is the loss of commission. Nonetheless, it claims that the loss of commission was relationship, unaffected. never and, related therefore, to their their Law alleged 75 distributor relationship is 5 Civil No. 11-1232 (JAG) Defendant clarifies that Plaintiff received commission as compensation Brokerage for his agreement. services (Docket as no. a Broker, 14-2, p. pursuant 2-3). In to the support, Defendant cites the agreement: As full compensation for all services rendered by Broker under this Agreement . . . Company shall pay price. unrelated have to Broker to the developed commission claims these commissions were alleged Defendant a dealer relationship Plaintiff with Defendant. based on Defendant the net selling completely alleges might Plaintiff received commission in his capacity as a broker. Plaintiff, in his statements or motions, does not prove otherwise. In fact, by Plaintiff s own admission, the dealer relationship existed parallel to their broker agreement, (See Docket No. 34, P. 15). Defendant thus claims that the loss of commission has had no bearing over the ongoing dealer relationship between the parties. The Court, after reviewing the record and reconsidering both parties motions, is convinced by Defendant s argument. The Court finds that, as Defendant argues, the alleged dealer relationship between the parties has not been impaired. More importantly, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant s motion for reconsideration, which clarifies key issues in this case, and presents a colorable argument concerning Plaintiff s Law 75 claim. The same is unopposed and sways this Court to rule 6 Civil No. 11-1232 (JAG) in Defendant s favor. Given the Court s previous ruling on Plaintiff s lack of exclusivity as a dealer, and Plaintiff s own admissions concerning his ongoing relationship with Defendant, the Court finds that Plaintiff s Law 75 claim should be dismissed. Since the Court finds dismissal is proper, we need not go further in regards to Defendant s remaining arguments. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant s motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff s Law 75 claim shall be dismissed. Judgment shall follow accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 11th day of June, 2012. S/Jay A. Garcia-Gregory JAY A. GARCIA-GREGORY United States District 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.
