Huertas Leon et al v Colon-Rondon

Filing 8

OPINION AND ORDER denying the request for Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Judge Juan M. Perez-Gimenez on 1/14/2014.(om) Modified document type on 1/14/2015 (su).

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

EMMANUEL E. HUERTAS LEON, ET AL.
Plaintiffs
v.

CIVIL NO. 15-1017 (PG)

IDALIA COLON RONDON, ET AL.
Defendants.

Opinion and Order
The

plaintiffs

Restraining

Order

appear

(“TRO”)

before
to

the

prevent

Court

to

violations

request
of

a

Title

Temporary
II

of

the

American with Disabilities Act (“A.D.A.”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12132, 12133 and
42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29
U.S.C. § 794 and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution.
The Complaint relates that the plaintiffs are qualified individuals
within the meaning of the ADA who resided at Hogar Hacienda El Ruiseñor,
an institution providing medical care and other services to persons with
development

and

physical

disabilities.

Docket

No.

1

at

¶

15.

The

Department of the Family of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico allegedly
oversees and provides funding for the operation of Hogar Hacienda El
Ruiseñor, located in Trujillo Alto. Docket No. 1 at ¶ 16.
According to the plaintiffs, on or around December 5, 2014, they
were relocated from Hogar Hacienda to other facilities. Docket No. 1 at ¶
26. Their “removal” was done without prior notification or authorization
and without performing individual medical assessments of the patients.
Docket

No.

substitute

1

at

homes

¶¶
are

27

and

29.

“unfit,”

The

plaintiffs

“unsanitary,”

aver

that

“overcrowded”

their
and

new

poorly

furnished. Docket No. 1 at ¶¶ 26, 35, 36 37 and 40.
The plaintiffs posit that the termination of the services they
received at Hogar Hacienda El Ruiseñor violate a number of federal and
state statutes, most notably the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act ant the
Puerto Rico Bill of Rights for Persons with Disabilities, 1 L.P.R.A. ¶
5121.

CIVIL NO. 15-1707(PG)

Page 2

Before filing the instant case, the plaintiffs sought relief in San
Juan Municipal Court but the judge “declined to take any action.” Docket
No. 1 at ¶ 29.
With that procedural background, we now turn to the merits of the
plaintiffs’ request for a Temporary Restraining Order. After reviewing
the Complaint, the Court finds that the plaintiffs do not meet the
requisites of Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and thus
DENIES the Temporary Restraining Order sought.
A TRO is an extraordinary remedy that should not be granted unless
the movant proves the following elements: “(1) the plaintiff's likelihood
of success on the merits; (2) the potential for irreparable harm in the
absence of an injunction; (3) whether issuing an injunction will burden
the

defendants

less

than

denying

an

injunction

would

burden

the

plaintiffs; and (4) the effect, if any, on the public interest.” See
Gonzalez-Droz v. Gonzalez-Colon, 573 F.3d 75, 79 (1st Cir. 2009).
The

underlying

purpose

of

a

temporary

restraining

order

is

to

preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm until there is an
opportunity

to

hold

a

hearing

on

the

application

for

a

preliminary

injunction. See Granny Goose Foods, Inc. V. Brotherhood of Teamsters and
Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 of Alameda County, 415 U.S. 423, 94 S.
Ct. 1113, 39 L. Ed.2d 435 (1974).
The court finds that there is no such irreparable harm at this
juncture.

The

plaintiffs

were

moved

to

the

substitute

facilities

on

December 8, 2014, that is, more than one month before they filed the
Complaint in this case. In fact, the Complaint states that any remedy in
this case would be aimed at preventing “future deprivation” and “future
discrimination.” Docket No. 1 at ¶ 48. The immediacy that a TRO requires
is undermined by these facts.
In addition, the plaintiffs’ have not convinced the Court that they
meet the likelihood of success prong. Likelihood of success on the merits
has been said to be the most important factor for a court to consider
when deciding whether to issue injunctive relief, see Blue & Gold Fleet,
L.P. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1308, 1312 (Fed.Cir.2007).

CIVIL NO. 15-1707(PG)

Page 3

Though the Complaint does mention the alleged “deficiencies” in the
substitute facilities vis-à-vis Hogar Hacienda El Ruiseñor, it is not
clear how these differences constitute a violation of the ADA. Therefore,
we

find

that

the

plaintiffs

have

not

sufficiently

established

their

likelihood of success in this action.
Based on all the above, the request for a Temporary Restraining
Order is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 14th day of January, 2015.

S/ JUAN M. PÉREZ-GIMÉNEZ
JUAN M. PEREZ GIMENEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE