Cases

ORDER DENYING STAY UNDER 48 U.S.C. § 2161 GUSTAVO A. GELPI, United States District Judge Defendant filed a Notice of Automatic Stay, seeking to avail himself of the debt-related litigation stay created by the Puer-to Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (“PROMESA”), 48 U.S.C. §§ 2102-2241. (Docket No. 80). De*2fendant Pesquera seeks to

GRIFFIN, J. The State appeals an order granting defendant, Julio Baez-DeLaRosa’s [“Defendant”], motion to suppress statements that he made to law enforcement. The State urges that the trial court erred by granting the motion to suppress because Defendant was not in custody at the time that he made the statements and, thus, law enforcement was not required to give Defendant Miranda1 warnings. Fo

OPINION AND ORDER BESOSA, District Judge. Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Marcos E. Lopez’s Report and Recommendation (“R & R”), (Docket No. 155), concerning defendants’ motion to dismiss, (Docket No. 123), and their supplement to motion to dismiss, (Docket No. 129). The magistrate judge recommends that all federal claims against defendants Jose Fuentes-Agostini, Pedro Toledo-Davila, Aníbal Solivan-

447 F.Supp.2d 168 (2006) Enid Marrero GUTIERREZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Esperanza MOLINA, et al., Defendants. Civil No. 03-1256 (JAG)(JA). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. September 5, 2006. *169 *170 Liz M. Cruz-Jimenez, Lixandra Osorio-Felix, Nicolas Nogueras Law Offices, San Ju

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 21-1739 JANET VAZQUEZ-VELAZQUEZ; RAMON A. DEL VALLE-LOPEZ; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP DEL VALLE-VAZQUEZ; CARLOS R. CESPEDES-GOMEZ; JOCELYN CALO-BIRRIEL; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CESPEDES-CALO; SAUL O. ALMEDA-CRUZ; JUDITH NIEVES-RIVERA; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP ALMEDA- NIEVES; FRANCISCO M. ALVARADO-BARRIOS; MARILYN ALVAREZ-RIVERA; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP ALVARADO-ALVAREZ; JUAN C. ARROYO-RAMIREZ; DAMARIS VELEZ-RIOS;

524 F.3d 600 (2008) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Ignacio RAMOS-CARDENAS; Jorge Alberto Aguirre-Melecio; Guillermo Lopez-Quezada; Roman Arguelles-Aguirre; Francisco Melecio-Arguelles; Ramon Obregon-Lopez; Jose Melecio-Arguelles; Juan Pedro Hurtado-Garcia; Gabriel Melecio-Arguelles; Francisco Javier Aguirre-Melecio; Jaime Suarez-De La Rosa, Defendants-Appellants. No. 06-51383. U

ORDER CARMEN CONSUELO CEREZO, District Judge. Having considered the complaint filed by petitioner Manuel Contreras ■pro se and all its attachments (D.E. 4), the Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)'(D.E. 14) filed by respondent César Miranda-Rodríguez,' the current Attorney General of the Commonwealth,1 and the Report and Recommendati

363 F.Supp.2d 30 (2005) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff(s) v. Johnny LAZU-RIVERA, et al., Defendant(s) United States of America, Plaintiff(s) v. Felix Carlos Egipciaco Figueroa, et al., Defendant(s) United States of America, Plaintiff(s) v. Felix Rafael Egipciaco Figueroa, et al., Defendant(s) United States of America, Plaintiff(s) v. Anibal Fernandez-Tavarez, et al., Defendant(s). Cri

815 F.Supp.2d 448 (2011) In re PUERTO RICAN CABOTAGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION. MDL No. 3:08-md-1960 (DRD). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. September 13, 2011. *450 H. Laddie Montague, Jr., Ruthanne Gordon, Berger & Montague, PC, Philadelphia, PA, Maria D. Bertolez-Elvira, Nestor Mendez-Gomez, Pietrantoni Mendoz & Alvare

REVISED MAY 1, 2008 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 9, 2008 No. 06-51383 Charles R. F

419 F.Supp.2d 101 (2006) Antonio NUÑEZ-NUÑEZ, Plaintiff, v. Roberto SANCHEZ-RAMOS, et als., Defendants. No. Civ. 05-1166(DRD). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. February 28, 2006. *102 *103 Antonio Nunez-Nunez, San Juan, PR, pro se. Beatriz Annexy-Guevara, Reichard & Esc

OPINION AND ORDER DOMINGUEZ, District Judge. Pending before the Court is co-defendants, Jack Allison, in his capacity as Executive Director of' the Highways and Transportation Authority, and the Puerto Rico Highway Authority’s Motion for Entry of Dismissal and for Imposition of Sanctions Against Plaintiff (Docket No.7).1 Co-defendants move the Court to

534 F.3d 1320 (2008) Adelina GARCIA; Antonio Garcia; Jeronimo Vargas-Vera; Efrain Aguilar; Paulina Aguilar; Adelaida Aguirre; Jose R. Aguirre; Salvador Almanza; Miguel Amaya; Rogelio Andrade; Jesus Anguiano; Efigenia Arana; Jose R. Arana; Ramon Arana; Alma Armendariz; Jorge L. Banda Valadez; Delfino Barragan; Lucia Barragan; Ramon P. Barragan; Holga Benitez; Baltazar Bonilla; Maria Guadalupe Bonilla; Catalina Bustillos; Bernardo Calderon; Etelvina Calder

Opinion by JUDGE LOEB ¶ 1 Defendant, Atorrus Leon Rainer, appeals the trial court's order denying his Crim. P. 35(c) motion, which argued that his 112-year sentence is unconstitutional, pursuant to Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48,

650 F.3d 350 (2011) Luisa PEREZ; Elvin Francisco Gonza Osovio, Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation; Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants-Appellants, and Ray Barrientos; Maria Gomez; Juana Miguel; Gibran Moya Rivera; Gloria Paneto Castro; Shitwa Perez Lopez; Jose Antonio Santiag Lugo; Maritza Alcover

975 F.Supp. 135 (1997) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Luis FERNANDEZ SANTANA, et al., Defendants. Crim. No. 97-37(SEC). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. July 31, 1997. *136 *137 Joseph V. Hoffer, Asst. U.S. Atty., U.S. Attorney's Office, Hato Rey, PR, for Plaintiff. <

ACCEPTED 15-25-00013-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 12:26 PM No. 15-25-00013-CV

ACCEPTED 15-25-00012-cv FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 3:13 PM No. 15-25-00012-CV

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Defendants-appellants Tyson Foods, Inc. and Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. (collectively, “Tyson”) appeal from the district court’s interlocutory order denying their motion for partial summary judgment. We ordered the parties to submit briefs addressing whether this appeal should be dismissed on the ground that the order appealed from was not final. Tyson argues that we have jurisdiction over the appeal under