United States of America v. One Rural Lot Identifide As Finca #5,991 Located In Barrio Pueblo, Hatillo, Puerto Rico et al

Filing 322

ORDER denying 304 Motion to Set Aside Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Jose A Fuste on 1/21/10. (mrj)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT COURT D IS T R IC T OF PUERTO RICO U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. O N E RURAL LOT IDENTIFIED AS FINCA N O . 5991 LOCATED IN BARRIO PUEBLO, P U E R T O RICO, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . C i v il No. 06-1960 (JAF)

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

ORDER O n September 26, 2006, the United States commenced civil forfeiture proceedings a g a in s t several parcels of real estate, including the rural lot identified as Finca No. 5500, located in Barrio Pueblo in Hatillo, Puerto Rico. (Docket No. 1.) On July 1, 2008, La Iglesia Asamblea d e Dios de Hatillo, Inc. ("Claimant"), moved to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 2 4 to assert its ownership of a subdivision of Finca No. 5500. (Docket No. 170.) We issued a n order ("Order") denying Claimant's motion as untimely on July 23, 2008, reminding C laim an t that it may have alternate legal recourse under Puerto Rico law. (Docket No. 178.) O n November 2, 2009, Claimant filed the instant petition for relief from our Order under F e d e ra l Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), 1 (3), 2 and (6). 3 (Docket No. 304.) On November 18,

Rule 60(b)(1) provides relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for "mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect" within one year from the entry of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Although excusable neglect is a "fairly flexible concept," relief under Rule 60(b) is available "only under

1

Civil No. 06-1960 (JAF) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

-2 -

B a n c o Santander Puerto Rico ("BSPR") moved to intervene under Rule 24 to challenge C la im a n t's petition. (Docket No. 305.) BSPR filed a motion in opposition on November 20 (D o c k e t No. 306), and Claimant responded on December 11 (Docket No. 311). C laim a n t argues that we should grant relief because it is an alleged victim of fraudulent c o n v e ya n c e of the disputed subdivision; those responsible for the alleged fraud have failed to p e rf o rm on a settlement agreement pertaining to the disputed property; and Claimant's counsel f a iled to inform Claimant of our Order. (Docket No. 304.) BSPR opposes on the grounds that a n earlier voluntary dismissal in the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance applies as res judicata to bar Claimant's instant claim in this court. (Docket No. 306.) F irst, we must deny Claimant's petition as untimely with respect to Rule 60(b)(1) and (3) b e c au s e more than a year had passed since the issuance of our Order, and we have no discretion to enlarge the one-year deadline. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2), 60(c)(1) (2007) (amended 2009). S e c o n d , justice does not require extraordinary relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because Claimant may h a v e remedies in the Commonwealth courts for obligations in contract or in tort. N o tw ith s ta n d in g BSPR's position (Docket No. 306), res judicata does not apply under Puerto R i c o law against parties that were not in privity with the settlement agreement or where a

exceptional circumstances." Aguiar-Carrasquillo v. Agosto-Alicea, 445 F.3d 19, 27-28 (1st Cir. 2006) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S. 380, 388 (1993)). Under Rule 60(b)(3), a court may grant relief from a final judgment due to the "fraud . . . , misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). Rule 60(b)(6) is a catch-all provision that permits the court to grant relief from a final judgment where justice requires such an extraordinary measure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6).
3 2

Civil No. 06-1960 (JAF) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

-3 -

s tip u la te d dismissal fails to indicate that it is with prejudice to further litigation. See 31 L .P .R .A . § 3343 (1990); 32 L.P.R.A. App. III R. 39.1(a)(2) (2000). It is unclear whether C la im a n t's stipulated settlement explicitly precluded subsequent recourse to legal action. (See D o c k e t Nos. 303-3; 303-4.) Moreover, an alleged breach of this settlement agreement could g iv e rise to an action for breach of contract. See 31 L.P.R.A. § 3018 (1990). F o r the foregoing reasons, we hereby DENY Claimant's petition for relief under Rule 6 0 (b )( 1 ), (3), and (6) (Docket No. 304). I T IS SO ORDERED. S a n Juan, Puerto Rico, this 21 st day of January, 2010. s /J o s é Antonio Fusté J O S E ANTONIO FUSTE C h ie f U.S. District Judge