E.A. Hakim Corp. et al v. New WinCup Holdings, Inc. et al
Filing
46
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)
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, ¶ 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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?