Case: LTS Doc#:11-24 Filed:06/19/17 Entered:06/19/17 21:15:29 Exhibit Exhbit 17 Motion Page 1 of 5

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Case: LTS Doc#:11-24 Filed:06/19/17 Entered:06/19/17 21:15:29 Exhibit Exhbit 17 Motion Page 1 of 5"

Sarah Estella Lawson
5 years ago
Views:

1 Exhibit Exhbit 17 Motion Page 1 of 5 HON. ROSSANA LÓPEZ-LEÓN, SENATOR AT-LARGE OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO. Petitioner v. COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE SAN JUAN JUDICIAL CENTER SUPERIOR DIVISION HON. RICARDO ROSSELLÓ-NEVARES, GOVERNOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO; GERARDO PORTELA- FRANCO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE PUERTO RICO FISCAL AGENCY AND FINANCIAL ADVISORY AUTHORITY; HON. WANDA VÁZQUEZ-GARCED, SECRETARY OF JUSTICE OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO Respondents CIVIL NO. SJ2017CV00107 COURTROOM: 904 RE: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE TO THE HONORABLE COURT: COMES NOW the Government of Puerto Rico (hereinafter State ) on its own behalf and representing the Governor of Puerto Rico, Hon. Ricardo Rosselló-Nevares, solely in his official capacity, through undersigned counsel and very respectfully STATES, ALLEGES, AND PRAYS: I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Petition in this case was filed through the Unified Case Management and Administration System (Spanish acronym SUMAC) on March 30, On March 31, 2017, the Government of Puerto Rico was served with a copy of the Petition and an Order entered by this Court setting a hearing for April 10, 2017, to determine the merits of the extraordinary remedy being sought. 1

2 Exhibit Exhbit 17 Motion Page 2 of 5 3. At the hearing, the Court ordered the Petitioner to amend the abovecaptioned Petition within five (5) days. The Minutes of the hearing show that: Having heard the arguments, the Court grants the petitioner a term of 5 days in which to file the corresponding amendment to the petition, including the indispensable party. In addition, [the petitioner] shall submit an answer to the Motion to Dismiss that has been filed. The respondent and co-respondent will proceed to file the corresponding motions after the petition is amended. 4. The Petitioner filed the Amended Petition in the evening hours of April 18, On April 20, 2017, An Application for Intervention was filed in this case by the Asociación Puertorriqueña de Profesores Universitarios [Puerto Rico Association of University Professors] (APPU). In the application for intervention, the APPU requests as a remedy that it be given the same documents that were requested by the petitioner herein. The Application for Intervention filed by the APPU does not show that such entity has complied with the material requirement of having made a prior demand to the abovecaptioned respondent, for which the Application for Intervention should not be considered, since it does not comply with the material requirements for issuing a writ of mandamus. II. BRIEF ALLEGATIONS OF THE PARTIES 6. In its Application for Intervention, the APPU argues that due to the cutbacks that the University of Puerto Rico would face with the implementation of the Fiscal Plan approved by the Financial Oversight Board it needs: the documents, studies, reports, memoranda, letters, analyses, actuarial studies, reports on projections of cutbacks and income, expenses and investments that were used to draft the Fiscal Plan for Puerto Rico. 7. We should note that the party that is requesting the Intervention does not meet the statutory requisites for issuing a writ of mandamus in its favor, so that the intervention thereof lacks merit. III. DISCUSSION OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL FRAMEWORK 2

3 Exhibit Exhbit 17 Motion Page 3 of 5 A. THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS LACKS MERIT The Rules of Civil Procedure provide the following with regard to the manner of requesting the issue of the writ of mandamus: following: Rule 54: A writ of mandamus, whether peremptory or alternative, may be obtained by filing a sworn request to such effect. When seeking such remedy and the right to demand the immediate execution of an act is evident and there is no apparent excuse for not executing said act, the court may enter a peremptory order granting the remedy; otherwise, the court will order that an answer be made, and as soon as possible, hold a hearing, receive evidence, if necessary, and enter a decision in a timely manner. These orders of the court shall be enforced in the same manner as any other order of the court is enforced. Furthermore, Section 649 of the Code of Civil Procedure establishes the The writ of mandamus may be issued by the Supreme Court or the Court of First Instance, or any justice or judge thereof, in court or in chambers, to any lower court, corporation, board or person to compel the performance of any act which the law especially orders as a duty resulting from public employment, position or function 32 LPRA 3422 (Our emphasis). The Supreme Court has defined the concept of ministerial duty as the duty imposed by law that does not allow for discretion in the exercise thereof, but rather is compulsory and imperative. See: Acevedo Vilá v. Meléndez Ortiz, supra; Noriega Rodríguez v. Hernández Colón, supra; Álvarez de Choudens v. Tribunal Superior, 103 DPR 235 (1975); Pagán v. Towner, 35 DPR 1, 3 (126). It is a material requisite that before requesting the issue of a writ of mandamus, the petitioner must have previously demanded of the respondent the performance of its duty. [The petitioner] must allege in the petition for a writ of mandamus the fact that a demand was made and the official refused or failed to comply. Noriega vs Hernandez Colón, 135 DPR 406 (1994). The applicant failed to meet the requisite of a prior demand. In its Application for Intervention the party applying for intervention states that because Senator 3

4 Exhibit Exhbit 17 Motion Page 4 of 5 Rossana López had made certain prior demands for the unspecified information being requested, it would be proper for [the APPU] to be exempted from this requisite without further consideration, since it should be deemed that it would be useless and ineffectual. An analysis of the letters [sic] requesting documents from Governor by Senator Rossana López clearly shows that it [sic] was delivered on letterhead paper bearing the seals of the Senate of Puerto Rico and the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico and the signatures of the legislators Rossana López in her capacity as Senator and Jesús Manuel Ortiz in his capacity as Representative. Therefore, any response to such letter was made in the capacity of the Petitioner as Senator and not to the APPU, which at no time has made a prior demand for the requested documents. In the past it has been emphasized that as a condition for issuing a writ of mandamus the following factors must be considered: "the possible impact that the writ of mandamus could have on the public interests that might be involved; avoiding undue interference in the procedures of the executive power, and that the writ of mandamus should not cause confusion or be prejudicial to the rights of third parties". Noriega v. Hernández Colón, 135 DPR 406, 448 (1994). The instant claim being so broad and the documents not being specified is extremely burdensome for the party appearing herein. As ruled by the Supreme Court, the Writ of Mandamus is a court action or procedure of a civil nature, and is extraordinary in the sense that it is only warranted when there is no other appropriate remedy, [it is of a] privileged nature, since granting such is at the discretion of the court. (Our emphasis). See: Acevedo v. Aponte, 2006 TSPR 115 (2006), Bco. Des. Eco. v AMC Surgery, 157 DPR 150 (2002); Asoc. Res. Piñones, Inc. v. JCA, 142 DPR 599, 604 (1997); Ortiz v. Muñoz, 19 DPR 850 (1913). We contend that the party that is requesting the Intervention has not complied with all of the requisites to move this Court to grant a highly discretional remedy, for which the petition lacks merit. III. CONCLUSION 4

5 Exhibit Exhbit 17 Motion Page 5 of 5 The above discussion clearly shows that the party that is seeking to intervene in this case has not complied with the statutory requirements for a writ of mandamus in its favor. To be sure, the allegations of the Application for Intervention itself show that the APPU has not made any prior specific demand to the party appearing herein. Since the prior demand is a material requisite for issuing the writ of mandamus, we contend that the Intervention should not be allowed, since the request being made by the applicant lacks merit. WHEREFORE, we respectfully pray that this Court rule against the Motion for Leave to Intervene made by the APPU. I CERTIFY: That this motion has been filed electronically through the Unified Case Management and Administration System (SUMAC), which will notify at the same time all counsel of record at their respective addresses, which constitutes the notice that shall be made between counsel, as provided in the Rules of Civil Procedure. In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 21st day of April RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. WANDA VÁZQUEZ-GARCED Secretary of Justice WANDYMAR BURGOS-VARGAS Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Matters IVÁN J. RAMÍREZ-CAMACHO Sole Registry of Attorneys: Assistant Undersecretary for Civil Matters /s/liany Vega LIANY A. VEGA-NAZARIO Sole Registry of Attorneys: Acting Director Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Matters, Special Remedies and Public Policy Division P O Box San Juan, Puerto Rico Tel: (787) , Ext Fax: (787) lvega@justicia.pr.gov 5

Case: LTS Doc#:1315 Filed:09/15/17 Entered:09/15/17 16:38:01 Desc: Main Document Page 1 of 17

Case: LTS Doc#:1315 Filed:09/15/17 Entered:09/15/17 16:38:01 Desc: Main Document Page 1 of 17 Document Page 1 of 17 Presentment Date: September 22, 2017 Objection Deadline: September 21, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. (AST) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO In re: THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT