Wiscovitch-Barreras et al v. Cruz-Soto et al

Filing 184

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Co-Defendant Carmen Yulin Cruz Soto's Motion to Stay at Docket No. 180 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Raul M. Arias-Marxuach on 4/5/2022. (mrr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
JOSÉ A. WISCOVITCH-BARRERAS, et
al.,
Plaintiffs,

CIVIL NO. 18-1029 (RAM)

v.
CARMEN YULÍN CRUZ-SOTO, et al.,
Defendants

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RAÚL M. ARIAS-MARXUACH, United States District Judge
Pending before the Court are Co-Defendant Carmen Yulín CruzSoto’s (“Mayor Cruz”) Urgent Motion Requesting That All Events in
the

Instant

Matter

be

Stayed

Pending

Appeal

(“Motion”)

and

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant Carmen Yulin Cruz’s Notice of
Appeal and Urgent Motion to Stay (“Opposition”). (Docket Nos. 180;
182). For the reasons stated below, Mayor Cruz’s Motion is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
I.
On

June

7,

2021,

BACKGROUND

Mayor

Cruz

moved

for

summary

judgment

contending that, as Mayor of San Juan, she was protected by the
doctrine of qualified immunity. (Docket No. 105 at 15-17). On March
4, 2022, this Court adopted Magistrate Judge Lopez’s Report and
Recommendation, which held that genuine issues of material fact
preclude a finding that Mayor Cruz is entitled to the protections

CIVIL NO. 18-1029 (RAM)

2

of qualified immunity, and thus summary judgment was denied.
(Docket Nos. 162 at 28; 176). Mayor Cruz subsequently filed a
Notice of Appeal, seeking interlocutory review of this Court’s
denial of the defense of qualified immunity. (Docket No. 179).
Mayor Cruz also filed the Motion, seeking a stay of all district
court proceedings pending the First Circuit’s decision on her
appeal. (Docket No. 180). Plaintiffs’ Opposition argues that the
First Circuit lacks jurisdiction to review this interlocutory
appeal, and thus the Motion should be denied. (Docket No. 182).
II.

ANALYSIS

A district court’s denial of the defense of qualified immunity
can be immediately appealed only to the extent that it turns on an
issue of law. See Diaz v. Martinez, 112 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1997)
(“If the pretrial rejection of the qualified immunity defense is
based on a purely legal ground . . . then the denial may be
challenged

through

an

interlocutory

appeal.”).

However,

“a

defendant, entitled to invoke a qualified-immunity defense, may
not appeal a district court’s summary judgment order insofar as
that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth
a genuine issue of fact for trial.” Id. (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8 states that “[a] party
must ordinarily move first in the district court for . . . a stay
of the judgment or order of a district court pending appeal.” Fed.

CIVIL NO. 18-1029 (RAM)

3

R. App. P. 8(a). Courts consider the following factors in deciding
whether to issue such a stay:
(1) whether the stay applicant has made a
strong showing that he is likely to succeed on
the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be
irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether
issuance of the stay will substantially injure
the
other
parties
interested
in
the
proceeding; and (4) where the public interest
lies.
Diaz-Colon v. Toledo-Davila, 980 F. Supp. 2d 214, 217 (D.P.R. 2013)
(quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)).
Here, Mayor Cruz did not address any of the above-stated
factors. Her Motion states, in conclusory fashion, that her appeal
“turns on legal, rather than factual grounds.” (Docket No. 180 at
1). Such a bare bones allegation fails to make a “strong showing
that [s]he is likely to succeed on the merits,” Diaz-Colon, 980 F.
Supp.

2d

at

217,

especially

when

“[t]he

dividing

line

that

separates an immediately appealable order from a nonappealable one
in these purlieus is not always easy to visualize.” Diaz, 112 F.3d
at 3. Additionally, nowhere does the Motion grapple with factors
two through four of the above-cited test. (See Docket No. 180). In
the absence of arguments to the contrary, this Court finds that
further delay will cause harm to Plaintiffs, who are in the midst
of preparing for trial, and that “the public policy concerns
underlying official immunity doctrines will not be served by
further delaying these proceedings.” Diaz-Colon, 980 F. Supp. 2d

CIVIL NO. 18-1029 (RAM)

4

at 218 (reviewing a similar motion to stay).
III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Mayor Cruz’s Motion at Docket No.
180 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This Court would entertain another
motion that properly substantiates the need for a stay pending
Mayor Cruz’s interlocutory appeal, should she choose to make one.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 5th day of April 2022.
S/RAÚL M. ARIAS-MARXUACH_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE