GAM Realty, LLC v. Santiago Marrero et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Denying 14 "Motion to Dismiss." Defendants shall answer the complaint by 6/22/2017. A Case Management Order will follow. Signed by Judge Pedro A. Delgado-Hernandez(LMR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
GAM REALTY, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL NO. 16-2910 (PAD)

DRNA SECRETARY, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Delgado-Hernández, District Judge.
GAM Realty, LLC (“GAM”) initiated the present action for declaratory and injunctive
relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Nelson J. Santiago Marrero, former Secretary of the
Department of Natural and Environmental Resources of Puerto Rico (“DRNA”); and Alberto
Lastra-Power, former Executive Director of the Puerto Rico Management and Permits Office
(“OGPe”) (Docket No. 14). Before the court is defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to
Federal Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)” (Docket No. 14), which plaintiff opposed (Docket No. 19).
For the reasons explained below, the motion is DENIED.
I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

To survive a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a complaint must allege a plausible
entitlement to relief. Rodríguez-Vives v. Puerto Rico Firefighters Corps., 743 F.3d 278, 283 (1st
Cir. 2014); Rodríguez-Reyes v. Molina-Rodríguez, 711 F.3d 49, 53 (1st Cir. 2013); RodríguezOrtiz v. Margo Caribe, 490 F.3d 92, 95 (1st Cir. 2007). Plausibility exists when the pleaded facts
allow the court to reasonably infer that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. MoralesCruz v. University of Puerto Rico, 676 F.3d 220, 224 (1st Cir.2012); Sepulveda-Villarini v.

GAM Realty, LLC v. Santiago-Marrero, et al.,
Civil No. 16-2910 (PAD)
Memorandum and Order
Page 2

Department of Educ. of P.R., 628 F.3d 25, 30 (1st Cir. 2010). It does not, however, require a
plaintiff to allege every fact necessary to win at trial or to successfully resist summary judgment.
Rodríguez-Reyes, 711 F.3d at 53-54; Rodríguez-Vives, 743 F.3d at 286.
The complaint must be viewed as a whole, construing well-pleaded facts in the light most
favorable to plaintiff, accepting their truth, and drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’
favor. Foley v. Wells Fargo, 772 F.3d 63, 68 (1st Cir. 2014); García-Catalán v. United States, 734
F.3d 100, 103 (1st Cir. 2013). Dismissal is not warranted if, so measured, the allegations plausibly
narrate a claim for relief. Carrero-Ojeda v. Autoridad de Energía Eléctrica, 755 F.3d 711, 717 (1st
Cir. 2014).
II.

DISCUSSION

A. The complaint 1
GAM seeks to build an open-area parking lot for commercial purposes in a property it owns
is Barrio Palmas (Palmas Ward), Cataño, Puerto Rico (Docket No. 1 at ¶¶ 8-9, 16). But OGPe has
not issued the required permit because DRNA has imposed numerous conditions for the
construction and use of the parking lot, including that GAM cede to the DRNA free and in
perpetuity, title to 2.8 out of the 5 cuerdas of GAM’s property. Id. at ¶ 25. According to GAM,
these “unconstitutional conditions” amount to a deprivation of GAM’s property in violation of its
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right not to have its property taken for public use without just
compensation, id. ¶¶ 16-27; have deprived GAM of $30,000.00 in monthly rent that it would
otherwise be receiving under a commercial agreement that has already been signed (id. at ¶45);
and impaired the use and value of the remaining portions of the property. Id. at ¶ 43. What is

1

The court takes the Complaint’s well pled allegations as true.

GAM Realty, LLC v. Santiago-Marrero, et al.,
Civil No. 16-2910 (PAD)
Memorandum and Order
Page 3

more, it claims that DRNA arbitrarily, illegally and erroneously reclassified the habitats found in
the property with the sole purpose of justifying its demand that GAM cede or transfer the title to
the property’s 2.8 cuerdas for free and in perpetuity. Id. at ¶ 34.
B. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Defendants contend that GAM failed to state a claim (Docket No. 14). Their motion does
not, however, discuss specific Supreme Court case law – which GAM noted in its Opposition –
where conditions on issuance of permits for land use or development analogous to the ones alleged
here were considered unconstitutional. Similarly, it makes no attempt to analyze these – or
analogous – opinions and explain to the court their applicability or non-applicability to GAM’s
particular claims. As such, the court need not tarry long to conclude that defendants’ motion lacks
merit. The allegations are sufficient at this stage.
III.

CONCLUSION

In view of the foregoing, defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED. Defendants shall
answer the complaint by June 22, 2017.
SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 6th day of June, 2017.
s/Pedro A. Delgado-Hernández
PEDRO A. DELGADO HERNANDEZ
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE