Ocasio v. Soto et al

Filing 17

ORDER granting 14 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; finding as moot 16 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Jay A. Garcia-Gregory on 6/10/2014. (RJC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

LESLIE OCASIO, et al.,
Plaintiffs
CIVIL NO. 13-1699 (JAG)
v.

NEFTALI SOTO,
Defendants

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court stands Neftalì Soto’s (“Soto”) Motion to
Dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6). For the reasons stated below the
Court hereby GRANTS Soto’s Motion to Dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Soto

was

the

Secretary

of

Agriculture

for

the

New

Progressive Party from 1993 to January 13, 1997. During his
tenure,

the

Department

of

Agriculture

laid

off

its

entire

mitigation workforce, amounting to around six hundred employees.
Shortly

thereafter,

Democratic

Party

general

came

into

elections
power

were

and

held.

Soto

The

ceased

Popular
to

be

Secretary.
A multitude of lawsuits ensued alleging the layoff plan was
unlawful. One of these was brought by a group of fifty exemployees. On appeal, this sub-group received a court judgment

Civil No. 13-1699 (JAG)

2

in their favor from Puerto Rico’s court of appeals. They later
secured a settlement with the Department of Agriculture.
A set of related cases, filed by a group of two hundred
employees
engaged

in

in

1999,

remained

settlement

pending.

negotiations

While

the

throughout

parties

2012,

were

the

New

Progressive Party regained power and Soto was reappointed as
Secretary of the Department of Agriculture. Allegedly, both the
Department

of

Justice

and

the

Department

of

Agriculture

recommended that Soto settle the outstanding cases, as Soto’s
predecessor had purportedly agreed to do. Much to Plaintiffs’
chagrin, Soto refused to settle.
In
brought
among

response,

a

group

of

these

September

this

federal

action

on

other

things,

that

Soto

state-court

infringed

15,

plaintiffs

2013

upon

alleging,

their

14th

Amendment rights by refusing to sign the settlement agreement in
the ongoing, consolidated state cases.
STANDARD
A. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard of Review
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a defendant may move to dismiss an
action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. To overcome a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the complaint must
plead

sufficient

facts

“to

state

a

claim

to

relief

that

is

plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662(2009).

Civil No. 13-1699 (JAG)

3

In Ocasio-Hernández v. Fortuño Burset, 640 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.
2011), the First Circuit distilled from Twombly and Iqbal a twopronged test designed to measure the sufficiency of a complaint.
First,

the

reviewing

court

must

identify

and

disregard

“statements in the complaint that merely offer legal conclusions
couched as fact, or threadbare recitals of the elements of a
cause of action.” Ocasio-Hernández, 640 F.3d at 12 (internal
punctuation

omitted).

In

this

analysis,

the

remaining

non-

conclusory factual allegations must be taken as true, even if
they are “seemingly incredible,” or that “actual proof of those
facts is improbable.” Id. Second, the court assesses if the
facts

taken

as

a

whole

“state

a

plausible,

not

merely

a

conceivable, case for relief.” Id.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs claim that Soto violated both their procedural
and substantive due process rights in refusing to settle the
case before the state court. A common element of all due process
claims is the existence of a constitutionally protected interest
in “life, liberty or property.” Rivera v. Rhode Island, 402 F.3d
27, 33-34 (1st Cir. 2005)(outlining elements of substantive due
process claim); Maymi v. Puerto Rico Ports Authority, 515 F.3d
20, 29 (1st Cir. 2008)(the same but for procedural due process
claims).

Civil No. 13-1699 (JAG)
Plaintiffs
least

for

4

accurately

career

state

employees)

is

that
a

public

employment

constitutionally

(at

protected

property interest. Cleveland Bd. Of Ed. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S.
532, 542 (1985). However, that interest is the subject of the
case

before

the

state

court.

Here,

the

issue

is

whether

Plaintiffs have a constitutionally-protected property interest
in the settlement of that case. The Court holds they do not.
The

Supreme

Court

has

defined

property

for

due

process

purposes as a “legitimate claim of entitlement” rooted in a
source

of

law

independent

from

the

Constitution.

Board

of

Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972). The
concept of entitlement carries with it a sense of control by one
party that is mutually exclusive to the cooperative nature of
the contracting process. Therefore, Plaintiffs cannot seriously
claim they are entitled to the settlement of the state court
case absent consent from the opposing party.
Plaintiffs
“precedent”

set

also
in

contend
the

case

that

Soto

brought

by

must
the

follow
other

50

the
ex-

employees. In that case, the Puerto Rico court of appeals held
that the Department of Agriculture’s layoff plan was unlawful.
According to Plaintiffs, since both cases shared the layoff plan
as a common denominator, Soto had no choice but to settle the
case

below.

This

is

plainly

wrong.

To

start

with,

the

case

referenced by Plaintiffs was not subject to review by the Puerto

Civil No. 13-1699 (JAG)
Rico

Supreme

appellate

Court;

court’s

5
rather,

decision.

it

was

Precedent,

settled
it

is

following
not.

the

Secondly,

Plaintiffs’ argument seems to confuse the concept of precedent
with estoppel. Plaintiffs could, in the case below, argue that
the lawfulness of the layoff plan has already been decided and
that the court must therefore act accordingly. But even if the
state court agreed, Soto could not be compelled to settle the
case.

In

that

case,

Plaintiffs

would

still

need

to

secure

judgment through litigation.
In sum, Plaintiffs have failed to put forth a cognizable
violation

of

a

constitutionally

protected

property

right.

Accordingly, their substantive and procedural due process claims
fail.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby GRANTS Soto’s
Motion to Dismiss. Judgment shall be entered accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 10th day of June, 2014.

S/ Jay A. Garcia-Gregory
JAY A. GARCIA-GREGORY
United States District Judge