Angulo et al v. Editorial Televisa International, S.A. et al

Filing 138

ORDER DENYING 134 MOTION for Reconsideration re 133 Opinion and Order, filed by Banco Popular de Puerto Rico; GRANTING 119 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds filed by ET Publishing International, Inc., Editorial Televisa International, S.A. We OR DER summary judgment, affirming Defendants' rights to all Trade Debt Payments deposited with this court. We ORDER the Clerk of Court to pay Defendants $249,512.41, constituting the sum of the Trade Debt Payments, and any accrued interest, less any court registry fees. Signed by Chief Judge Jose A Fuste on 8/25/2010.(mrj)

Angulo et al v. Editorial Televisa International, S.A. et al

Doc. 138

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT D IS T R IC T OF PUERTO RICO G E R A R D O A. ANGULO-MESTAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. E D IT O R IA L TELEVISA IN T E R N A T IO N A L , S.A. and ET P U B L IS H IN G INTERNATIONAL, INC., D e f e n d a n ts . -----------------------------------------------------B A N C O POPULAR DE PUERTO RICO, In te rv e n o r.

C iv il No. 09-1830 (JAF)

14 15 16 17 18 19

ORDER O n July 16, 2010, we issued an Opinion and Order denying Intervenor's motion for s u m m a ry judgment. (Docket No. 133.) Finding that Defendants, not Intervenor, appear to be e n title d to the "Trade Debt Payments" deposited with this court, we ordered Intervenor to show c a u s e as to why we should not, instead, order summary judgment in favor of Defendants.1 (Id.) I n t e r v e n o r responds to the order and moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) for

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)(2) authorizes summary judgment where "the pleadings [and] the discovery . . . materials on file . . . show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the [party] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."

1

Dockets.Justia.com

Civil No. 09-1830 (JAF) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

-2-

re c o n sid e ra tio n of our Opinion and Order.2 (Docket No. 134.) Defendants respond. (Docket N o . 137.) In our Opinion and Order, we found that the "Trade Debt Payments" constituted the a c c o u n ts receivable that Plaintiff Angulo-Mestas assigned to Defendants in late 2007. (Docket N o . 133.) Although Intervenor's predecessor in interest, Westernbank Puerto Rico ("WBPR"), f o rm e d with Angulo-Mestas in March 2005 a security agreement that included these accounts re c e iv a b le as collateral, WBPR did not perfect this security interest until August 10, 2009. (Id.) W e concluded that, under Puerto Rico law, Defendants are entitled to the "Trade Debt P a ym e n ts " as good-faith transferees who gave value for the accounts receivable before WBPR p e rf e c te d its interest in the same accounts. (Id.) In te rv e n o r now argues that it is entitled to any portion of the "Trade Debt Payments" that a c c ru e d after its perfection and that Defendants did not actually possess. (Docket No. 134.) In te rv e n o r cites no authority, nor do we find any, that suggests Defendants' rights as assignees m a y be disrupted in this manner. A s we noted in our Opinion and Order (Docket No. 133), an assignee of accounts who c o m p le te s his transaction without knowledge of a competing unperfected security interest takes f re e of that competing interest. 19 L.P.R.A. § 2101(1)(d) (2005); accord U.C.C. § 9-317(d) & c m t. 6 (2005). There is no indication that the subsequent perfection of that competing interest

Under Rule 59(e), any party may move the court to alter or amend a judgment within twenty-eight days of its entry. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). "Motions under Rule 59(e) must either clearly establish a manifest error of law or . . . present newly discovered evidence." FDIC v. World Univ. Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992).

2

Civil No. 09-1830 (JAF) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

-3-

c o u ld affect the assignee's rights. Therefore, Intervenor's belated perfection cannot defeat D e f e n d a n ts ' rights to the accounts receivable, either in whole or in part, and Defendants' actual p o s s e ss io n of the proceeds deposited with this court is immaterial. A c c o rd in g l y, we find no manifest error of law in our Opinion and Order (Docket N o . 133). Because Intervenor has failed to demonstrate its entitlement to the "Trade Debt P a ym e n ts ," we find that Defendants are entitled to these funds as a matter of law. We, th e re f o re , order summary judgment in Defendants' favor. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). F o r the reasons stated herein, we hereby DENY Intervenor's motion for reconsideration (D o c k e t No. 134). We ORDER summary judgment, affirming Defendants' rights to all "Trade D e b t Payments" deposited with this court. We GRANT Defendants' motion for disbursement o f funds (Docket No. 119). We ORDER the Clerk of Court to pay Defendants $249,512.41, c o n s titu tin g the sum of the "Trade Debt Payments" (see Docket Nos. 41; 61; 81; 87; 112; 121), a n d any accrued interest, less any court registry fees. I T IS SO ORDERED. S a n Juan, Puerto Rico, this 25th day of August, 2010. s/J o s é Antonio Fusté JO S E ANTONIO FUSTE C h ie f U.S. District Judge