Colon-Rodriguez v. Lopez-Bonilla , 94 F. App'x 847 ( 2004 )

Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 03-2224
HÉCTOR E. COLÓN-RODRÍGUEZ, in his personal capacity and as
President of Fundación Eco-Cultural, Inc. and doing business as
the Eco-Logic Co., Inc. & TM; ECO-LOGIC CO., INC., & TM;
FUNDACIÓN ECO-CULTURAL, INC., represented by its president Héctor
Colón-Rodríguez,
Plaintiffs, Appellees,
v.
CARLOS D. LÓPEZ-BONILLA, Hon., in his personal capacity and
official capacity as Mayor of the Municipality of Rincón; ALEXIS
ROSADO, Director of the Department of Public Works of the
Municipality of Rincón and member of the Municipality's
Procurement Board, ZAYDA RODRÍGUEZ-MORALES, in her personal
capacity and official capacity as President of the Procurement
Board, Municipality of Rincón; MUNICIPALITY OF RINCÓN,
represented by its Mayor Hon. Carlos D. López-Bonilla;
PERSONS A-Z,
Defendants, Appellants.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Circuit Judge,
Lipez, Circuit Judge, and
Garcia-Gregory,* District Judge.
*
Of the United States District Court for the District of
Puerto Rico, sitting by designation.
G. Ismalia Gutiérrez Galang, with whom the Law Offices of
Pedro E. Ortiz Álvarez, P.S.C., were on brief, for appellants.
Hector E. Calle-Ortiz for appellees.
April 22, 2004
-2-
Per Curiam. Since 1995, Héctor Colón-Rodríguez has
leased certain property, where he has operated a tourist gift shop,
from the municipality of Rincón in Puerto Rico. On October 1,
2000, he was given a five-year lease by the then-municipal
administration, which was under the control of the New Progressive
Party (NPP). He alleges that when the new administration came into
office, controlled by a different political party, the Popular
Democratic Party (PDP), he was harassed and false complaints were
made against him, culminating in a notice from Rincón on March 9,
2002 that it was terminating his lease effective April 8, 2002
because he had defaulted on certain lease provisions.
On June 19, 1992, Colón-Rodríguez, his gift shop (Eco-
Logic Co., Inc.), and his non-profit organization (Fundación Eco-
Cultural, Inc.), for which he had planned to build a center next to
his store, filed suit in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, asserting that the termination of the lease violated
Colón-Rodríguez's civil rights and constituted political
discrimination and retaliation against him. After several
extensions of time, the municipality and municipal defendants
answered the complaint on September 5, 2002. The matter continued
in federal court, with some delay occasioned by the fact that
plaintiffs' original counsel was replaced.
Impatient with the lack of progress in getting to the
merits of the controversy in federal court, the defendants did not
-3-
file a motion with the federal court to expedite proceedings but
instead filed a Puerto Rico court complaint on April 1, 2003 to
evict Colón-Rodríguez from the property. The state court set a
hearing date for July 2, 2003. The defendants did not, as best we
can tell, inform the state court of the pending federal court
proceedings.
On June 20, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the
federal court to stay the state court proceedings. On July 1,
2003, before the defendants had responded, the court granted the
requested injunction. The defendants submitted their opposition to
the motion later that day, arguing that a stay was prohibited by
the 28 U.S.C. § 2283, the Anti-Injunction Act. After realizing
that the court had already ruled, the defendants then moved for
reconsideration, which the court denied on July 16, 2003. The
defendants took this appeal on July 28, 2003, arguing the
injunction violated § 2283 and raising a new argument that a stay
was required under the doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37(1971). Although Younger was not raised in the trial court, it may
still be raised before this court. See Bellotti v. Baird, 428 U.S.
132, 143 n.10 (1976).
There was some confusion below about which exception to
the Anti-Injunction Act permitted the court to consider the
application for injunctive relief. The parties now agree that, at
a minimum, the fact that the plaintiffs brought the action under §
-4-
1983 means that the case was within an exception to § 2283.
Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225 (1972). That being so, at oral
argument, this court inquired of counsel what the defendants' real
interest in pursuing this appeal was. Defendants said that their
objective is to achieve a prompt hearing on the merits of this
matter so that the status of the property can resolved. They said
that, from their point of view, Colón-Rodríguez has created a
dangerous and unsightly condition at the premises by his failure to
meet certain lease obligations.
The defendants represented to us that they have no
objection to remaining in federal court and having the federal
court resolve the entire matter, provided that there would be a
prompt resolution, at least of the issue concerning the condition
of the premises. This court then inquired of plaintiffs' counsel
whether the plaintiffs would agree to join with the defendants in
asking the district court to expedite and promptly schedule this
matter. Plaintiffs' counsel agreed. Defendants then said that
they would voluntarily dismiss the appeal if they could get a
prompt resolution in the trial court.
The parties have provided such a written agreement to
this court, the pertinent portions of which are attached as Exhibit
A. As a result, we order that the appeal be dismissed without
prejudice, and the case is remanded to the district court with
instructions to expedite the resolution of this matter and to set
-5-
a firm trial date. We also note that the defendants' most pressing
concern seems to be the condition of the premises and that it may
be appropriate for the district court to promptly consider that
issue first. If the defendants become concerned that they are
unable to achieve a prompt resolution of this matter, they may then
seek appropriate relief and raise material arguments first in the
district court.
So ordered.
-6-
EXHIBIT A
Come now the parties in this appeal, the Municipality of
Rincón and Héctor Colón Rodríguez, through the subscribing
attorneys, and respectfully submit the following stipulation.
1. Defendants' interest is to expedite the
resolution of this controversy. They have no
objection to being in the federal district court,
provided that the proceedings are expedited.
2. Plaintiffs agree that the proceedings be
expedited.
3. The parties agree to the dismissal of this appeal
without prejudice.
4. The parties jointly request an expedited trial
date to be set for any of the Court's available
dates in the months of August or September 2004.
-7-