Garcia-Rubiera v. Fortuno, 1st Cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 Garcia-Rubiera v. Fortuno, 1st Cir. (2013)

1/32

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 2002

GLADYS GARC A- RUBI ERA ET AL. ,

Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ant s ,

v.

LUI S G. FORTUO, Gover nor of Puer t o Ri co;J UAN CARLOS PUI G- MORALES, Tr easur y Secr et ar y,

Def endant s, Appel l ees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Gust avo A. Gel p , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Tor r uel l a and Kayat t a, Ci r cui t J udges.

Ant oni o J . Amadeo- Mur ga f or appel l ant s.Susana I . Peagar cano- Br own, Assi st ant Sol i ci t or

Gener al , Depar t ment of J ust i ce, f or appel l ees.

August 16, 2013


2/32

KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. As t hi s cour t has det ai l ed i n

pr i or opi ni ons, Puert o Ri co l aw has operated si nce 1995 i n a manner

t hat ef f ect i vel y causes hundr eds of t housands of mot or vehi cl e

owner s t o pay t wi ce f or l i abi l i t y i nsur ance, once t hr ough a

Commonweal t h- r un pl an, and once i n t he pr i vate market . Garc a-

Rubi er a v. Cal der on ( "Gar c a- Rubi er a I ") , 570 F. 3d 443 ( 1st Ci r .

2009) ; Gar c a- Rubi er a v. For t uo ( "Gar c a- Rubi er a I I ") , 665 F. 3d

261 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . Under t hi s mor e- or - l ess dupl i cat e pr emi um

r egi me, Commonweal t h l aw decl ared mot or vehi cl e owner s t o be

ent i t l ed t o a r ef und of t he excess pr emi ums pai d. P. R. Laws Ann.

t i t . 26, 8051, 8055( n) . The pr ocedur es f or seeki ng such

r ef unds, however , wer e compl i cat ed, var i ed, and, most i mpor t ant l y,

ber ef t of any meani ngf ul not i ce; so much so as t o be, i n ef f ect ,

hi dden. See Gar c a- Rubi er a I I , 665 F. 3d at 273 ( no not i ce mai l ed,

not hi ng post ed onl i ne, no post i ng i n any readi l y avai l abl e

publ i cat i on, and no wr i t i ng subj ect t o easy di scover y even by t hose

who go i n per son t o t he per t i nent gover nment of f i ce) . Lar ge

amount s of uncl ai med r ef unds accumul at ed. Begi nni ng i n 2002, every

t wo years t he Commonweal t h pl aced t he uncl ai med r ef unds wi t h i t s

Tr easur y Secr et ar y t o be hel d " i n t r ust , " wi t h t he provi so t hat , i f

not cl ai med wi t hi n f i ve year s, t he f unds escheat ed t o t he

Commonweal t h wi t hout not i ce t o t he owners of t he f unds.

I n Gar c a- Rubi er a I , t hi s cour t hel d t hat vehi cl e owner s

who pai d t wi ce f or pr i vat e and Commonweal t h- i ssued i nsur ance

-2-


3/32

possess a const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed pr oper t y i nt er est i n t hose

dupl i cat e pr emi ums. 570 F. 3d at 452, 257. I n Gar c a- Rubi er a I I ,

we concl uded t hat t he Commonweal t h' s f ai l ur e to not i f y af f ect ed

vehi cl e owners of t hei r r ei mbur sement r i ght s amount ed t o a

vi ol at i on of t he pr ocedur al due pr ocess guar ant ees of t he Fi f t h and

Four t eent h Amendment s. 665 F. 3d at 274- 76. We hel d t hat " under

t hese condi t i ons t he Commonweal t h i s r equi r ed t o gi ve i ndi vi dual

not i ce t o i nsur eds owed r ei mbur sement t o the maxi mum ext ent

f easi bl e, " and we i nst r uct ed t he di st r i ct cour t t o r esol ve f act ual

i ssues as t o "f easi bi l i t y" on r emand. I d. at 276. We al so hel d

t hat " t he Commonweal t h must publ i sh Pr ocedur e 96, i n f ul l , onl i ne

and i n ot her pl aces readi l y accessi bl e by t he publ i c. " I d. at 277.

On r emand, t he di st r i ct cour t ordered t he Commonweal t h t o

not i f y i ndi vi dual vehi cl e owner s of t hei r r ei mbur sement r i ght s, t o

publ i sh i nf ormat i on r egardi ng t he r ei mbur sement pr ocedur e i n t wo

newspaper s, and t o al l ow at l east 120 days f or vehi cl e owner s t o

cl ai mt he r ei mbur sement s t o whi ch t hey ar e ent i t l ed. The di st r i ct

cour t ' s or der r epr esent s a marked i mpr ovement of t he st atus quo.

Even so, t he r el i ef or der ed by t he di st r i ct cour t f ai l s t o sat i sf y

t he mi ni mumr equi r ement s of pr ocedur al due pr ocess under t he Fi f t h

and Four t eent h Amendment s. The Commonweal t h has i n i t s possess i on

vehi cl e- speci f i c i nf or mat i on wi t hout whi ch many i nsur ed owner s wi l l

not be abl e t o obt ai n the rei mbur sement s t o whi ch they are

ent i t l ed, yet t he di st r i ct cour t ' s or der does not r equi r e t he

-3-


4/32

Commonweal t h t o r el ease t hi s i nf ormat i on t o vehi cl e owners.

Mor eover , al t hough t he di st r i ct cour t ' s or der onl y pr ovi des f or a

120- day gr ace per i od i n whi ch vehi cl e owner s can cl ai m

r ei mbur sement bef ore t hei r pr emi um payment s escheat t o t he

Commonweal t h, t he Commonweal t h' s counsel conceded at or al ar gument

t hat a one- year gr ace per i od woul d be more appr opr i at e i n thi s

cont ext . And whi l e t he di st r i ct cour t ordered t he Commonweal t h t o

publ i sh t wo not i ces- - one i n an Engl i sh- l anguage newspaper and one

i n a Spani sh- l anguage newspaper - - al er t i ng vehi cl e owner s of t hei r

r ei mbur sement r i ght s, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not engage i n t he

r equi r ed bal anci ng anal ysi s t o det er mi ne whet her one- t i me not i ce i n

t wo newspaper s i s suf f i ci ent t o sat i sf y t he Commonweal t h' s

const i t ut i onal obl i gat i ons.

Accor di ngl y, we wi l l r emand t hi s case t o t he di st r i ct

cour t once agai n, t hi s t i me t o al l ow i t t o craf t wi t h t he benef i t

of f ur t her gui dance an i nj unct i on t hat mor e f i t t i ngl y r emedi es t he

Commonweal t h' s const i t ut i onal vi ol at i ons. I n t he meant i me, we

order t hat no dupl i cat e pr emi ums shal l escheat t o t he Commonweal t h

unt i l i t has est abl i shed and compl i ed wi t h a r ei mbur sement

pr ocedur e whi ch meet s t he basi c r equi r ement s of const i t ut i onal due

process.

Fi nal l y, we r ever se t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of

pl ai nt i f f s ' r equest f or an awar d of i nt er i mat t or neys' f ees. Thi s

l awsui t i s now ent er i ng i t s t wel f t h year . Our deci si on t oday means

-4-


5/32

t hat many more mont hs may el apse bef ore a j udgment i s f i nal .

Throughout t hi s ext ended per i od, pl ai nt i f f s' at t or ney has sought t o

vi ndi cat e t he const i t ut i onal r i ght s of hundr eds of t housands of

vehi cl e owner s acr oss Puer t o Ri co. Pl ai nt i f f s have al r eady

pr evai l ed i n t hi s cour t on t he mer i t s of t hei r pr ocedur al due

pr ocess cl ai ms. Accor di ngl y, as pr evai l i ng par t i es i n a ci vi l

r i ght s acti on, pl ai nt i f f s ar e st at ut or i l y ent i t l ed t o an awar d of

at t or ney' s f ees f r om t he Commonweal t h. On r emand, t he di st r i ct

cour t shoul d make such an awar d i n an amount det er mi ned by t he

cour t t o be suf f i ci ent t o cover t he compensabl e wor k per f or med f r om

t he begi nni ng of t hi s act i on t hr ough t he dat e of t hi s opi ni on.

I. Background

For a det ai l ed descr i pt i on of t he backgr ound of t hi s case

pr i or t o 2012, we r ef er t he r eader t o our opi ni ons i n Gar c a-

Rubi er a I and I I . We not e her e onl y t hat t he r ul i ngs i n t hose

opi ni ons ar e not subj ect t o r econsi der at i on on t hi s t hi r d appeal .

Uni t ed St at es v. Mat t hews, 643 F. 3d 9, 13 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( " [ A]

l egal deci si on made at one st age of a cr i mi nal or ci vi l pr oceedi ng

shoul d r emai n t he l aw of t hat case thr oughout t he l i t i gat i on,

unl ess and unt i l t he deci si on i s modi f i ed or over r ul ed by a hi gher

cour t " ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Mor an, 393 F. 3d 1, 7 ( 1st Ci r .

2004))).

On r emand f ol l owi ng our deci si on i n Gar c a- Rubi er a I I ,

pl ai nt i f f s sought a per manent i nj unct i on r equi r i ng t he

-5-


6/32

Commonweal t h1 t o send i ndi vi dual i zed not i ces t o al l vehi cl e owner s

who ar e ent i t l ed t o r ei mbur sement s. Pl ai nt i f f s r equest ed t hat t he

not i ces be sent by cer t i f i ed mai l and t hat each not i ce st at e t he

amount of t he ref und ( i ncl udi ng i nt er est ) t o whi ch t he owner i s

ent i t l ed, t he l i cense pl at e and vehi cl e i dent i f i cat i on number

( "VI N" ) associ at ed wi t h each vehi cl e f or whi ch a dupl i cat e pr emi um

was pai d, and basi c i nf or mat i on r egar di ng t he cor r espondi ng

i nsur ance pol i cy. 2 Pl ai nt i f f s al so sought t o r equi r e t he

Commonweal t h t o publ i sh a l i st of t he vehi cl e owner s ent i t l ed t o

r ei mbur sement i n t wo dai l y newspaper s of gener al ci r cul at i on once

a week f or t wo consecut i ve weeks.

For vehi cl e owner s whose pr emi ums had not yet been

t r ansf er r ed f r om t he Asoci aci n Conj unt a del Segur o de

Responsabi l i dad Obl i gat or i o ( " J UA" ) t o t he Tr easur y Depar t ment ,

pl ai nt i f f s' pr oposed i nj unct i on woul d al l ow t he owner s at l east 120

days i n whi ch t o seek r ei mbur sement f r om t he J UA. Af t er t he

t r ansf er of f unds f r om t he J UA t o t he Tr easur y Depar t ment ( and f or

vehi cl e owners whose pr emi ums have pr evi ousl y been t r ansf er r ed t o

1 Named Def endant Lui s G. For t uo i s t he f ormer governor ofPuer t o Ri co. Named Def endant Car l os Pui g- Moral es i s t he f ormert r easur y secret ar y.

2 The t ext of t he pl ai nt i f f s' pr oposed i nj uncti on r ef er s t o"t he i nsur ance pol i cy descri pt i on, " wi t hout cl ar i f yi ng whatspeci f i c det ai l s shoul d be i ncl uded i n t hi s descr i pt i on. I tappear s f r om Pl ai nt i f f s ' ot her f i l i ngs, however , t hat t hat t heyare seeki ng t he name of t he i nsur ance company, t he pol i cy number ,t he pol i cy commencement date, and t he pol i cy expi r at i on date.

-6-


7/32

t he Tr easur y) , pl ai nt i f f s' pr oposed i nj unct i on woul d al l ow an

addi t i onal f i ve- year gr ace per i od dur i ng whi ch t he vehi cl e owner s

coul d f i l e f or r ei mbur sement . Pl ai nt i f f s sought t he appoi nt ment of

an i ndependent moni t or t o ensur e compl i ance wi t h t he i nj unct i on.

Pl ai nt i f f s al so f i l ed a mot i on i n di st r i ct cour t f or an

awar d of at t or ney' s f ees. The mot i on sought an i nt er i m f ee awar d

of $1. 5 mi l l i on and a f i nal awar d equal t o 25 per cent of " t he

common f und and i nt er est cr eat ed by [ pl ai nt i f f s' at t or ney' s]

ef f or t s. " Pl ai nt i f f s suggest ed t hat t he "common f und" shoul d

i ncl ude not onl y t he pr emi um payment s t hat ar e ul t i mat el y

r ei mbur sed, but al l dupl i cate pr emi um payment s hel d by the J UA or

t r ansf er r ed t o t he Tr easur y ( appar ent l y wi t hout r egar d t o whet her

t hese moni es ar e ever cl ai med by t he vehi cl e owner s) . Pl ai nt i f f s

est i mated t hat t hi s f und amount ed t o more t han $180 mi l l i on bef ore

i nt er est - - i n whi ch case pl ai nt i f f s' per cent age- of - f unds pr oposal

woul d al l ow t hei r at t or ney to r ecover an awar d of at l east $45

mi l l i on.

The di st r i ct cour t r ef er r ed t he mat t er of i nj unct i ve

r el i ef t o a magi st r ate j udge, whose r eport and r ecommendat i on t he

cour t ul t i mat el y adopt ed wi t h onl y mi nor modi f i cat i ons. See

Gar c a- Rubi er a v. For t uo, 873 F. Supp. 2d 421 ( D. P. R. 2012) . The

di st r i ct cour t ' s per manent i nj unct i on r equi r ed t he Commonweal t h t o

compi l e t he names and addr esses of al l mot or vehi cl e owners who

pai d a dupl i cate pr emi um t hat has not been r ef unded, and t o send

-7-


8/32

i ndi vi dual not i ces by mai l 3 t o al l such per sons. I d. at 426. The

di st r i ct cour t f ur t her or der ed t hat each not i ce i ncl ude ( 1) t he

f act t hat t he vehi cl e owner i s ent i t l ed t o a r ef und; ( 2) t he dat e

t hat t he vehi cl e owner ' s pr emi um was or wi l l be t r ansf er r ed t o t he

Tr easur y; ( 3) t he t ext of Pr ocedure 96; and ( 4) t he r el evant

port i ons of Law 230. 4 I d. However , t he di st r i ct cour t di d not

r equi r e t he not i ces t o i ncl ude t he amount s of t he r ef unds, t he

l i cense pl ate numbers and VI Ns associ at ed wi t h each r ef und, or any

i nf or mat i on r egar di ng t he i nsur ance pol i ci es cor r espondi ng t o each

r ef und. I d.

The di st r i ct cour t al so or dered t he J UA t o publ i sh not i ce

once i n an Engl i sh- l anguage newspaper of gener al ci r cul at i on and

once i n an Spani sh- l anguage newspaper of gener al ci r cul at i on, and

t o make t he text of Pr ocedur e 96 f r eel y avai l abl e onl i ne and at t he

gover nment of f i ces t hat col l ect J UA pr emi ums. I d. Accor di ng t o

t he permanent i nj unct i on, t he Commonweal t h must al l ow at l east 120

days f r om t he t i me of not i ce bef or e any addi t i onal pr emi ums ar e

3 The magi st r ate j udge' s r eport and r ecommendat i on l ef t t o t heCommonweal t h t he deci si on of whether t o mai l not i ce by cer t i f i ed orr egul ar mai l . Gar c a- Rubi er a, 873 F. Supp. 2d at 427- 28. Thedi st r i ct cour t ' s i nj unct i on si mpl y r ef er r ed t o "mai l " and "mai l i ng"and t her ef or e al so i mpl i ci t l y l ef t t he deci si on t o t heCommonweal t h. Pl ai nt i f f s have not appeal ed t hi s por t i on of t he

r ul i ng so we do not r evi ew i t .4 As our pr evi ous opi ni ons expl ai n i n gr eat er det ai l , Law 230

i s t he name of t he st at ute enact ed on Sept ember 11, 2002 andcodi f i ed at P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 26, 8055( l ) t hat est abl i shed t hesyst em of t r ansf er r i ng uncl ai med dupl i cat e pr emi ums t o t hecommonweal t h. Garc a- Rubi era I I , 570 F. 3d at 449.

-8-


9/32

t r ansf er r ed f r om t he J UA t o t he Tr easur y. I d. For pr emi ums t hat

have al r eady been t r ansf er r ed t o t he Tr easury ( i ncl udi ng t hose t hat

have al r eady escheat ed t o t he Commonweal t h) , t he per manent

i nj unct i on pr ovi ded a 120- day gr ace per i od dur i ng whi ch vehi cl e

owner s can f i l e thei r r ei mbur sement cl ai ms. 5 I d. at 426. The

di st r i ct cour t r et ai ned j ur i sdi cti on over t he mat t er i t sel f but

deni ed pl ai nt i f f s' r equest f or an i ndependent moni t or . I d. at 423,

428- 29.

Wi t h r egar d t o at t or ney' s f ees, t he di st r i ct cour t i ssued

a one- sent ence or der on J ul y 9, 2012, denyi ng pl ai nt i f f s' r equest

t hat t he f ee awar d be cal cul ated on a per cent age- of - f unds basi s.

The J ul y 9 or der st at ed t hat t he cour t woul d cal cul at e at t or ney' s

f ees accor di ng t o the l odest ar met hod, whi ch i s based on t he number

of hour s t hat pl ai nt i f f ' s at t or ney has devot ed t o t he case and t he

at t or ney' s hour l y r at e. The cour t ent er ed anot her one- sent ence

or der on Sept ember 19, 2012 denyi ng pl ai nt i f f s' mot i on f or i nt er i m

f ees.

Pl ai nt i f f s have f i l ed t i mel y appeal s f r om t he di str i ct

cour t ' s per manent i nj unct i on or der and f r om t he cour t ' s or der

r egar di ng i nt er i m at t or ney' s f ees. We have j ur i sdi ct i on under 28

5 Law 230 al r eady pr ovi des f or a f i ve- year wai t i ng per i odbetween t he t i me t hat pr emi ums are t r ansf err ed f r omt he J UA t o t heTr easur y and t he t i me t hat t hose f unds escheat t o t he Commonweal t h.P. R. Laws t i t . 26 8055( l ) . The per manent i nj unct i on woul d notnarr ow t hat f i ve- year wi ndow; t he 120- day gr ace per i od woul d onl yappl y t o f unds t hat have al r eady escheat ed t o t he Commonweal t h ort hat ar e schedul ed t o escheat wi t hi n f our mont hs of t he or der .

-9-


10/32

U. S. C. 1292( a) ( 1) . See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Mass. Mar . Acad. ,

762 F. 2d 142, 147 ( 1st Ci r . 1985) ; see al so Mar at hon Oi l Co. v.

Uni t ed St at es, 807 F. 2d 759, 763- 764 ( 9t h Ci r . 1986) .

II. Analysis

On appeal , pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he i nj uncti ve r el i ef

or der ed by t he di st r i ct cour t i s not suf f i ci ent t o r emedy t he

Commonweal t h' s const i t ut i onal vi ol at i ons. Pl ai nt i f f s al so ar gue

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t abused i t s di screti on by denyi ng t hei r

mot i on f or i nt er i mat t or ney' s f ees and by ref usi ng t o announce t hat

i t woul d f ol l ow t he per cent age- of - f unds appr oach i n cal cul at i ng t he

ul t i mate f ee award. Af t er set t i ng out t he common st andard of

r evi ew t hat gover ns bot h t he i nj unct i ve- r el i ef and at t or ney' s- f ee

el ement s of t he appeal , we consi der t hese argument s i n t ur n.

A. Standard of review

Our cases r ecogni ze t hat a di st r i ct cour t i s "i n t he best

posi t i on t o t ai l or t he scope of i nj unct i ve r el i ef t o t he i t s

f act ual f i ndi ngs"; accor di ngl y, our r evi ew of t he t er ms of an

i nj unct i on i s f or abuse of di screti on onl y. Vaquer i a Tr es

Monj i t as, I nc. v. I r i zar r y, 587 F. 3d 464, 487 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ; see

al so Hi l l er Cr anber r y Pr ods. , I nc. v. Kopl ovsky, 165 F. 3d 1, 4 ( 1st

Ci r . 1999) . We appl y t he same abuse- of - di scr et i on st andard when

r evi ewi ng a di st r i ct cour t ' s cal cul at i on of at t or ney' s f ees.

Pear son v. Fai r , 980 F. 2d 37, 44 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) . When appl yi ng

t he abuse- of - di scret i on st andar d, we r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

-10-


11/32

under l yi ng f act ual f i ndi ngs f or cl ear er r or and i t s l egal

concl usi ons de novo. Gl obal NAPS, I nc. v. Ver i zon New Eng. , I nc. ,

706 F. 3d 8, 12 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . A mi st ake of l aw embedded i n an

i nj unct i on or a f ee awar d al ways const i t ut es an abuse of

di scr et i on. I n r e Vol kswagen & Audi War r ant y Extensi on Li t i g. , 692

F. 3d 4, 13 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) .

B. Challenges to the scope and substance of the injunctive remedy

Pl ai nt i f f s r ai se f i ve di st i nct obj ect i ons t o t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s per manent i nj unct i on or der . Fi r st , t hey ar gue t hat t he

cl ass shoul d have been expanded t o encompass vehi cl e owner s who

doubl e- pai d f or i nsur ance i n t he year s 2008 t o 2012. Second, t hey

argue t hat vehi cl e owner s whose pr emi ums have al r eady been

t r ansf er r ed f r om t he J UA t o t he Tr easur y shoul d have f i ve year s

wi t hi n whi ch t o f i l e f or r ei mbur sement , r at her t han t he gr eat er of

120 days or f i ve years mi nus t he amount of t i me t hat has r un f r om

t he t r ansf er , as pr ovi ded by t he di st r i ct cour t ' s or der . Thi r d,

pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he i ndi vi dual not i ces mai l ed t o vehi cl e

owner s shoul d i ncl ude t he l i cense pl at e number s, VI Ns, and

i nsur ance pol i cy numbers cor r espondi ng t o t he cl ass members'

dupl i cat e pr emi um payment s. Four t h, pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he

per manent i nj unct i on' s pr ovi si ons r egardi ng newspaper not i ce ar e

i nsuf f i ci ent t o appr i se vehi cl e owner s of t hei r r ei mbur sement

r i ght s . Fi f t h, and f i nal l y, pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat the di st r i ct

cour t ought t o have appoi nt ed an i ndependent moni t or t o ensur e the

-11-


12/32

Commonweal t h' s compl i ance wi t h t he per manent i nj unct i on. We

consi der each of t hese argument s i n t ur n.

1. The class definition

Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat " i n t he i nt er est of j udi ci al

economy, " t he cer t i f i ed cl ass of unr ei mbur sed vehi cl e owner s who

made dupl i cat e premi um payment s i n t he 1997- 2007 per i od shoul d be

ext ended t o i ncl ude vehi cl e owners who ar e ent i t l ed t o

r ei mbur sement f or dupl i cate pr emi ums pai d i n t he year s 2008 t o

2012. The part i es do not cl ai m t hat t he Commonweal t h' s conduct

changed i n any mater i al way dur i ng t he 2008- 2012 per i od: vehi cl e

owner s who acqui r ed or r enewed t hei r r egi st r at i ons dur i ng t he

l at t er t i mef r ame wer e aut omat i cal l y charged f or cover age under t he

Commonweal t h' s i nsur ance pl an unl ess t hey pr oduced pr oper pr oof of

pr i vat e i nsurance, and t he Commonweal t h f ai l ed t o post Procedur e 96

onl i ne or t o make i t avai l abl e at t he of f i ces wher e J UA pr emi ums

are col l ect ed unt i l ear l y 2013. Moreover , t he Commonweal t h made no

appar ent ef f or t t o i nf or m vehi cl e owner s of t hei r r i ght t o

r ei mbur sement dur i ng t he 2008- 2012 per i od.

The Commonweal t h asser t s t hat pl ai nt i f f s never moved i n

t he di st r i ct cour t t o expand t he cl ass def i ni t i on ( as pr ovi ded f or

by Fed. R. Ci v. P. 23( c)( 1) ( C) ) . To t hi s ar gument , pl ai nt i f f s

of f er no r esponse. Si nce we ar e r emandi ng t he case f or f ur t her

consi derat i on anyhow, we t heref ore l eave t he quest i on of whether

-12-


13/32

and how t o expand t he cl ass def i ni t i on t o the di st r i ct cour t on

r emand. 6

2. The time period within which class members may seek

reimbursement

I n hi s r epor t and r ecommendat i on t o t he di st r i ct cour t ,

t he magi st r at e j udge emphasi zed t hat " t he Commonweal t h has a val i d

i nt er est i n maki ng a f i nal di sposi t i on of t he[ ] f unds" t hat , under

Puer t o Ri co' s Law 230, have al r eady escheat ed t o t he Commonweal t h.

Gar c a- Rubi er a, 873 F. Supp. at 426. Accor di ngl y, t he magi st r at e

j udge advi sed t hat t he di st r i ct cour t set a 120- day gr ace per i od

dur i ng whi ch vehi cl e owners whose dupl i cat e pr emi um payment s have

al r eady escheat ed t o t he Commonweal t h can submi t t hei r

r ei mbur sement cl ai ms. The magi st r at e j udge expl ai ned t hat " [ t ] he

120- day per i od i s t he same l engt h of t i me pl ai nt i f f s suggest f or

gi vi ng not i ce of a pr emi um t r ansf er f r om t he J UA t o t he

Commonweal t h, and shoul d t her ef ore be a reasonabl e amount of t i mef or i nsur eds t o pr epar e and submi t r equest s f or r ei mbur sement . "

I d. The di st r i ct cour t f ol l owed t hi s r ecommendat i on wi t hout addi ng

any r easons of i t s own f or t he 120- day deadl i ne. I d. at 421- 22.

6 The Commonweal t h suggest s t hat we pr eempt i vel y di spose of

t hi s i ssue on t he gr ounds t hat an expansi on of t he cl ass woul dent ai l f ur t her cl ass not i ce. Thi s i s not so, as t he cl ass her e i sa Rul e 23( b) ( 2) cl ass. See Fed. R. Ci v. P. 23( c) ( 2) ( "For anycl ass cer t i f i ed under Rul e 23( b) ( 1) or ( b) ( 2) , t he cour t may di r ectappr opr i at e not i ce to t he cl ass. " ( emphasi s added) ) ; Wal - Mar tSt or es, I nc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct . 2541, 2558 ( 2011) ( not i ce notmandat or y f or Rul e 23( b) ( 2) cl ass) .

-13-


14/32

Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he cl ock shoul d be r eset so t hat

cl ass members have t he f ul l f i ve- year gr ace per i od t hey woul d have

enj oyed had not i ce been gi ven as i t shoul d have been gi ven.

Al t hough t he pl ai nt i f f s' ar gument has a cer t ai n l ogi c t o i t , we ar e

not per suaded t hat a f i ve- year gr ace per i od i s r equi r ed as par t of

t he r emedy f or t he const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on. Whi l e Puer t o Ri co' s

Law 230 pr ovi des f or a f i ve- year per i od, "a f ai l ur e t o i mpl ement

st at e l aw . . . i n i t sel f does not vi ol at e t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause. "

Hof f man v. Ci t y of War wi ck, 909 F. 2d 608, 621 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) .

The ai m here i s not t o r est ar t a st at ut or y grace per i od

t hat was par t of a f l awed scheme i n whi ch no meani ngf ul not i ce was

gi ven. The ai m, r at her , i s t o pr ovi de not i ce and a r easonabl e

oppor t uni t y t o act on t hat not i ce. See Uni t ed St at es v. Locke, 471

U. S. 84, 108 ( 1985) ( const i t ut i onal l y adequat e pr ocess wher e

l egi sl at ur e "af f or d[ s] t hose wi t hi n t he st at ut e' s r each a

r easonabl e oppor t uni t y bot h t o f ami l i ar i ze themsel ves wi t h t he

general r equi r ement s i mposed and t o compl y wi t h t hose

r equi r ement s" ) ; see al so Hodel v. I r vi ng, 481 U. S. 704, 729 ( 1987)

( St evens, J . , concur r i ng i n t he j udgment ) . Whi l e f i ve year s i s

cer t ai nl y f ar more than i s necessar y, t he Commonweal t h has not

shown t hat a 120- day gr ace per i od woul d gi ve vehi cl e owners whose

pr emi ums have been t r ansf er r ed t o t he Treasur y a " r easonabl e

oppor t uni t y" t o avoi d t he escheat of t hose f unds. As not ed above,

a vehi cl e owner submi t t i ng a r ei mbur sement cl ai munder Procedur e 96

-14-


15/32

must , i nt er al i a, obt ai n a cer t i f i cat i on f r omher pr i vat e i nsur ance

company t hat payment was r ecei ved and t hat nei t her t he company nor

t he consumer has been r ei mbur sed t o dat e. I n some cases, t he

i nsurance compani es wi l l be asked t o cer t i f y t hat payment s were

r ecei ved more t han one- and- a- hal f decades ago.

I n sum, whi l e we cannot say t hat due pr ocess demands a

f i ve year gr ace per i od, we cannot f i nd any basi s i n t he r ecor d f or

a f i ndi ng t hat a 120- day gr ace per i od pr ovi des a "r easonabl e

oppor t uni t y" f or vehi cl e owner s t o avoi d escheat . At or al

ar gument , t he Commonweal t h' s counsel sai d t hat i t was wi l l i ng t o

al l ow al l vehi cl e owner s at l east one year i n whi ch t o f i l e f or

r ei mbur sement . On r emand, t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d determi ne

whet her a gr ace per i od of not l ess t han one year f r om t he mai l i ng

and publ i cat i on of not i ce as pr oposed by t he Commonweal t h suf f i ces

f or due pr ocess pur poses. I f t he di st r i ct cour t i s per suaded t hat

pr i vat e i nsur ance compani es wi l l be abl e t o r espond t o

cer t i f i cat i on r equest s wel l wi t hi n t hat wi ndow, t hen a gr ace per i od

of no l ess t han one year shoul d be suf f i ci ent t o gi ve vehi cl e

owner s a r easonabl e oppor t uni t y t o pr ot ect t hei r pr oper t y i nt er est

i n unr ei mbur sed f unds. I f a one- year gr ace per i od does not al l ow

enough t i me f or pr i vat e i nsurance compani es t o pr ocess t he

ant i ci pat ed cer t i f i cat i on r equests, t hen t he di str i ct cour t i n i t s

di scret i on shoul d f ashi on an al t er nat i ve appr oach t hat wi l l

-15-


16/32

r easonabl y ensur e a r easonabl e opport uni t y t o avoi d l oss of t he

f unds.

3. The inclusion of information that will put the recipientsin a position to seek reimbursement

Whi l e t he di st r i ct cour t ordered t he Commonweal t h t o mai l

i ndi vi dual not i ces t o vehi cl e owner s who ar e ent i t l ed t o

r ei mbur sement , not i ce r equi r ed by t he cour t onl y i ncl udes: ( 1) a

st at ement t hat t he owner i s ent i t l ed t o a r ef und; ( 2) t he dat e of

t he t r ansf er of t he pr emi um f r om t he J UA t o t he Tr easur y; ( 3) t he

t ext of Procedur e 96; and ( 4) t he pr ovi si ons of Law 230 r egar di ng

escheat . 873 F. Supp. 2d at 422. I n t hi s r espect , t he di st r i ct

cour t adopt ed t he Commonweal t h' s pr oposal . The magi st r at e j udge' s

r epor t expl ai ned that t he Commonweal t h' s pr oposal " t r acks" t he

not i ce descri bed i n Gar c a- Rubi er a I I and t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s have

not demonst r at ed t hat t he Commonweal t h can " r eadi l y cor r el at e"

addi t i onal i nf or mat i on- - such as t he l i cense pl at e number s, VI Ns,and i nsurance pol i cy numbers cor r espondi ng t o the dupl i cate pr emi um

payment s- - so t hat t hose det ai l s can be i ncl uded i n t he i ndi vi dual

mai l i ngs. I d. at 427. Accor di ng t o t he magi st r at e j udge' s r epor t ,

" [ w] hi l e def endant s coul d show good f ai t h by col l ect i ng and sendi ng

t hi s addi t i onal i nf or mat i on, due pr ocess does not r equi r e i t . " I d.

The r equi r ement s of due process ar e not sat i sf i ed,however , " i f t he not i f yi ng par t y knew or had reason to know t hat

not i ce woul d be i nef f ect i ve. " Gat es v. Ci t y of Chi . , 623 F. 3d 389,

403 ( 7t h Ci r . 2010) . As t he Supr eme Cour t st at ed i n Locke, t he

-16-


17/32

Const i t ut i on r equi r es not j ust not i ce of t he r equi r ement s t o be

f ol l owed t o pr ot ect one' s pr oper t y, but "a r easonabl e oppor t uni t y

. . . t o compl y wi t h t hose r equi r ement s. " 471 U. S. at 108; see

al so Gr eene v. Li ndsey, 456 U. S. 444, 451 ( 1982) ( " I n det er mi ni ng

t he const i t ut i onal i t y of a pr ocedur e est abl i shed by t he St at e t o

pr ovi de not i ce i n a par t i cul ar cl ass of cases, i t s ef f ect must be

j udged i n t he l i ght of i t s pract i cal appl i cat i on t o t he af f ai r s of

men as t hey ar e or di nar i l y conduct ed. " ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) ) .

Her e, t he requi r ed not i ce i s i n many cases bei ng sent

year s t oo l at e, l ong af t er many vehi cl e owner s wi l l have si nce

st opped r et ai ni ng r ecor ds or even t hei r vehi cl es t hemsel ves. The

not i ce woul d onl y appr i se reci pi ent s t hat , at some t i me bet ween

1997 and 2007, t hey doubl e- pai d f or aut omobi l e l i abi l i t y i nsur ance.

I t woul d not t el l t he r eci pi ent s when t hey doubl e- pai d, f or whi ch

vehi cl e, or on whi ch i nsur ance pol i cy t hey doubl e- pai d- - al l

i nf or mat i on t hat t hey wi l l need i n or der t o f i l e f or r ei mbur sement .

Even vehi cl e owners who have kept met i cul ous r ecor ds of t hei r

per sonal f i nances f or t he l ast one- and- a- hal f decades woul d have

di f f i cul t y det er mi ni ng how exact l y they mi ght go about r ecoupi ng

t hei r money.

Gar c a- Rubi er a I I sai d t hat not i ce t o vehi cl e owner s

"must i ncl ude not i ce of t he t r ansf er of f unds f r om J UA t o t he

Commonweal t h, of Pr ocedure 96, and of Law 230' s escheat

-17-


18/32

pr ovi si ons. " 665 F. 3d at 277. That st at ement of what t he not i ces

cer t ai nl y need i ncl ude di d not pr ecl ude Pl ai nt i f f s f r om

est abl i shi ng t hat ot her i nf or mat i on was al so necessary i n or der t o

r ender t he not i ces ef f ect i ve i n pr ovi di ng a meani ngf ul oppor t uni t y

t o compl y wi t h t he r ei mbur sement r equi r ement s. The r ecord makes

cl ear t hat addi t i onal i nf or mat i on may i n many i nst ances be

essent i al i n or der t o pr ovi de r eci pi ent s wi t h a r easonabl e

oppor t uni t y t o compl y wi t h t he r ef und r equi r ement s. I n t ur n,

Counsel f or t he Commonweal t h conceded at oral argument t hat i t

woul d be " f easi bl e" t o i ncl ude l i cense pl at e number s and VI Ns i n

t he i ndi vi dual not i ces t o vehi cl e owner s. On r emand, t he di st r i ct

cour t shoul d hol d t he Commonweal t h t o t hat concessi on absent

convi nci ng pr oof t hat suppl yi ng such i nf or mat i on, whi l e f easi bl e,

woul d cr eat e a bur den di spr opor t i onat e to the benef i t cr eat ed.

As f or t he pl ai nt i f f s' speci f i c ar gument t hat t he

i ndi vi dual not i ces shoul d i ncl ude i nsur ance pol i cy number s as wel l

as l i cense pl at e numbers and VI Ns, t he Commonweal t h cont i nues t o

asser t t hat t hi s i nf or mat i on i s not avai l abl e. Yet i n t hei r

submi ssi ons t o t he di st r i ct cour t and t hei r appendi x on appeal , t he

pl ai nt i f f s have i ncl uded a CD t hat , t hey say, cont ai ns t he names,

addr esses, VI Ns, l i cense pl at e number s, and i nsur ance pol i cy

numbers of t he vehi cl e owners who ar e ent i t l ed t o r ei mbur sement .

On r emand, t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d det er mi ne, f i r st , whet her t he

i nf or mat i on i s or i s not avai l abl e. To t he ext ent t hat i t i s

-18-


19/32

avai l abl e, t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d wei gh t he benef i t t o vehi cl e

owner s of r ecei vi ng t he i nf or mat i on i n t hei r not i ces agai nst

what ever bur den t he Commonweal t h mi ght i ncur i n gat her i ng,

or gani zi ng, and suppl yi ng t he i nf or mat i on. Cf . Gr eene, 406 U. S. at

451. On t he one hand, i t i s di f f i cul t t o see why i nf or mat i on t hat

al r eady exi st s i n useabl e dat abases mat ched to owner names shoul d

not be pr ovi ded. On t he ot her hand, pr ovi di ng r emedi al not i ce

shoul d not be so cost l y as t o i mpose t oo gr eat a bur den i n l i ght of

t he benef i t conveyed.

4. Additional publication notice

On r emand f r om Gar c a- Rubi er a I I , pl ai nt i f f s pr oposed

t hat t he Commonweal t h be r equi r ed t o publ i sh a l i st of vehi cl e

owner s ent i t l ed t o r ei mbur sement , al ong wi t h t he t ext of Procedur e

96, i n two dai l y newspapers once a week f or t wo consecut i ve weeks. 7

Gi ven t hat si xt een year s have passed si nce t he f i r st of t he

dupl i cat e pr emi um payment s, many of t he addr esses on r ecor d wi t h

t he J UA and t he Treasur y Depar t ment may no l onger be accurat e, and

t he publ i cat i on of newspaper not i ce i n t hi s case i s t her ef or e

par t i cul ar l y i mpor t ant . I n i t s count er pr oposal , t he Commonweal t h

sought an or der r equi r i ng publ i cat i on i n t wo newspapers of gener al

ci r cul at i on- - one Engl i sh- l anguage newspaper and one Spani sh-

7 Pl ai nt i f f s al so pr oposed t hat t he newspaper not i ces i ncl udet he amount of t he ref und t o whi ch each vehi cl e owner i s ent i t l ed,t he l i cense pl ate number associ at ed wi t h each r ef und, and t he nameof t he company t hat i ssued t he cor r espondi ng i nsur ance pol i cy.Pl ai nt i f f s do not pr ess t hese ar gument s on appeal .

-19-


20/32

l anguage newspaper 8- - but t he Commonweal t h pr oposed t hat publ i cat i on

occur onl y once i n each newspaper ( r at her t han once a week over t he

cour se of consecut i ve weeks) . The magi st r at e j udge r ecommended

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t f ol l ow t he Commonweal t h' s count er pr oposal ,

and t he cour t adopt ed t he magi st r at e j udge' s r epor t . 873 F. Supp.

2d at 422- 23, 428.

The quest i on on appeal i s whet her t he Commonweal t h' s

count er pr oposal f or one- t i me publ i cat i on i n t wo newspaper s- - one

Engl i sh, one Spani sh- - i s consi st ent wi t h t he appr oach t hat "one

desi r ous of act ual l y i nf or mi ng t he [ vehi cl e owner s] mi ght

r easonabl y adopt . " Mul l ane v. Cent . Hannover Bank & Trust Co. ,

339 U. S. 306, 315 ( 1950) . We not e " t he i mpossi bi l i t y of set t i ng up

a r i gi d f or mul a as t o t he ki nd of not i ce t hat must be gi ven; not i ce

r equi r ed wi l l var y wi t h ci r cumst ances and condi t i ons. " Wal ker v.

Ci t y of Hous. , 352 U. S. 112, 115 ( 1956) ; accor d J ones v. Fl ower s,

547 U. S. 220, 226 ( 2006) ( quot i ng Wal ker ) . The number of newspaper s

8 The Commonweal t h' s counsel st at ed at oral argument t hatpl ai nt i f f s ar e "not i nt er est ed" i n Engl i sh- l anguage publ i cat i onnot i ce. Whi l e por t i ons of pl ai nt i f f s' br i ef on appeal mi ght bei nt er pr et ed t hi s way, we under st and pl ai nt i f f s t o be ar gui ng t hatt he di st r i ct cour t ought t o have expanded t he publ i cat i on not i cer equi r ement t o i ncl ude a second Spani sh- l anguage newspaper - - nott hat t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d dr op t he Engl i sh- l anguagepubl i cat i on not i ce. Whi l e t he vast maj or i t y of Puer t o Ri cans ar e

Spani sh- speaker s, appr oxi mat el y 5 per cent of t he popul at i on speaksonl y Engl i sh at home. See U. S. Census Bur eau, Det ai l ed LanguagesSpoken at Home and Abi l i t y To Speak Engl i sh f or t he Popul at i on 5Year s and Over f or t he Uni t ed St at es: 2006- 2008 t bl . 41 ( Apr .2010) , avai l abl e at ht t p: / / www. census. gov/ hhes/ socdemo/ l anguage.Publ i cat i on not i ce i n an Engl i sh- l anguage newspaper i s a r easonabl est ep i n r eachi ng t hi s por t i on of t he popul at i on.

-20-


21/32

and t he f r equency of publ i cat i on ar e not necessar i l y det er mi nat i ve.

Ul t i mat el y, "assessi ng t he adequacy of a par t i cul ar f or mof not i ce

r equi r es bal anci ng t he ' i nt er est of t he St at e' agai nst ' t he

i ndi vi dual i nt er est sought t o be pr ot ect ed by t he [Due Pr ocess

Cl auses] . ' " J ones, 547 U. S. at 229 ( quot i ng Mul l ane, 339 U. S. at

314) .

As a gener al r ul e, an appel l at e cour t wi l l "l eave t he

quest i on of what const i t ut es suf f i ci ent not i ce pr i mar i l y t o t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s di screti on and appl y a def er ent i al st andar d of

r evi ew. " Peopl e of St at e of I l l . ex r el . Har t i gan v. Pet er s, 871

F. 2d 1336, 1340 ( 7t h Ci r . 1989) . Her e, however , we have di f f i cul t y

di scer ni ng t he basi s f or t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on t o adopt t he

Commonweal t h' s count er pr oposal r at her t han t he pl ai nt i f f s'

suggest i on. The onl y expl anat i on of f er ed f or or der i ng one- t i me

not i ce- - r at her t han not i ce over t he cour se of consecut i ve

weeks- - was that t he Suppl ement al Rul es f or Admi r al t y or Mar i t i me

Cl ai ms and Asset For f ei t ur e Act i ons al l ow a j udgment of f or f ei t ur e

t o be ent er ed af t er one- t i me publ i cat i on of newspaper not i ce i f

accompani ed by post i ng on a government websi t e. 873 F. Supp. 2d at

428 ( ci t i ng Suppl ement al R. G( 4) ( a) ( i i i ) ) . But a j udgment of

f or f ei t ur e i s gener al l y ent er ed wi t h r espect t o per sonal pr oper t y

under t he Suppl ement al Rul es onl y af t er an ar r est war r ant i s i ssued

and execut ed, see Suppl ement al R. G( 3) ( b) - ( c) , and onl y af t er

not i ce i s sent " t o any person who reasonabl y appear s t o be a

-21-


22/32

pot ent i al cl ai mant , " i d. R. G( 4) ( b) ( I ) . Thus, t he suppl ement al

r ul e al l owi ng f or one- t i me publ i cat i on of newspaper not i ce i s

t ypi cal l y i nvoked af t er t he f eder al gover nment has made

si gni f i cant l y gr eat er ( and gener al l y mor e t i mel y) ef f or t s t o

cont act pot ent i al cl ai mant s t han t he Commonweal t h has made so f ar .

Two ot her poi nt s counsel agai nst t he appr oach t aken by

t he di st r i ct cour t . Fi r st , t he not i ce t o be pr ovi ded her e i s

not i ce ai med at achi evi ng a remedy f or a l ong ago def al cat i on

wher e, due t o t he passage of t i me, publ i cat i on i s l i kel y mor e

necessary t han i n ot her si t uat i ons. Second, t he val ue of t he

pr oper t y i nt er est s at st ake her e- - per haps mor e t han $150 mi l l i on- -

makes t he cost s of r epeat publ i cat i on r el at i vel y mi nor . Rat her

t han r el yi ng on t he Suppl ement al Rul es, whi ch addr ess a very

di f f er ent set of ci r cumst ances, t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d on r emand

engage i n t he bal anci ng exer ci se t hat case l aw r equi r es. See

J ones, 547 U. S. at 229; Dusenbery v. Uni t ed St at es, 534 U. S. 161,

167- 68 ( 2002) ; Mul l ane, 339 U. S. at 314. The di st r i ct cour t must

wei gh t he vehi cl e owner s' col l ect i ve i nt er est i n adequat e not i ce of

t hei r r ei mbur sement r i ght s agai nst t he cost t o t he Commonweal t h of

publ i shi ng not i ce i n an addi t i onal newspaper and r epeat i ng t he

not i ces over a second consecut i ve week. When asked how her cl i ent

woul d be bur dened by the pl ai nt i f f s' pr oposal , Commonweal t h' s

counsel ci t ed onl y "cost s, " and, whi l e t he recor d does not i ndi cat e

t hat t he cost s of publ i shi ng not i ces i n t hr ee newspaper s over t he

-22-


23/32

cour se of consecut i ve weeks woul d be subst ant i al i n compar i son t o

t he amount of uncl ai med f unds at st ake, t he Commonweal t h wi l l have

anot her oppor t uni t y t o suppl ement t he r ecor d on r emand.

Meanwhi l e, t he pl ai nt i f f s poi nt out t hat t wo

newspapers- - El Nuevo D a and Pr i mera Hora- - domi nat e t he Puer t o

Ri can mar ket . One r ecent pol l suggest s t hat 48 per cent of Puer t o

Ri cans r ead a pr i nt ed newspaper each day, wi t h 24 percent r eadi ng

El Nuevo D a and 21 percent r eadi ng Pr i mera Hora. Ryan, About Hal f

of Puert o Ri cans Read Newspapers Dai l y, Carr i bean Bus. , Oct . 21,

2010, avai l abl e at ht t p: / / cbonl i nepr . com/ pr nt _ed/ news02. php?nw_i d

=4184. I f t hi s i s mor e or l ess cor r ect , i t appear s t hat by

publ i shi ng not i ce i n t wo Spani sh- l anguage newspaper s- - as wel l as

one Engl i sh- l anguage newspaper - - t he Commonweal t h can i ncrease t he

l i kel i hood t hat i nf or mat i on r egar di ng t he r ei mbur sement pr ocess

wi l l r each a br oad swat h of t he Puer t o Ri can popul at i on. On

r emand, t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d det er mi ne whet her t he "cost s"

ci t ed by t he Commonweal t h are suf f i ci ent l y bur densome as t o

out wei gh t he benef i t s f r om a br oader r each.

The pl ai nt i f f s al so ar gue t hat t he newspaper not i ces

ought t o i ncl ude t he t ext of Tr easur y Procedur e 96. However , i t

appear s t o us t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s order al r eady accompl i shes

what t he pl ai nt i f f s have r equest ed: t he or der cl ear l y r equi r es

t hat "[ i ] n publ i shi ng . . . not i ce, def endant s shal l stat e . . .

t he t ext of Pr ocedur e 96. " 873 F. Supp. 2d at 422. I f any

-23-


24/32

ambi gui t y l i nger s, t he di st r i ct cour t wi l l have t he oppor t uni t y on

r emand to cl ar i f y t hat t he newspaper not i ces must i ncl ude t he t ext

of Procedur e 96 i n f ul l ( or some meani ngf ul summary of t he key

poi nt s i n t he t ext t hat r eci pi ent s wi l l need t o know) . 9

5. Plaintiffs' request for appointment of an independent

monitor

Pl ai nt i f f s ' f i f t h and f i nal obj ect i on t o t he scope of t he

per manent i nj unct i on i s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s or der does not

pr ovi de f or an i ndependent moni t or t o oversee t he Commonweal t h' s

compl i ance wi t h t he i nj unct i on' s t er ms. We t ake pl ai nt i f f s t o be

ar gui ng t hat t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d have exer ci sed i t s

di scr et i on under Rul e 53 of t he Feder al Rul es of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e t o

appoi nt a "speci al mast er " t o over see i mpl ement at i on of t he

i nj unct i on ( al t hough pl ai nt i f f s do not ci t e Rul e 53 or any ot her

pr ovi si on i n suppor t of t hei r ar gument ) . Rul e 53 of t he Feder al

Rul es of Ci vi l Procedur e al l ows f or t he appoi nt ment of a mast eronl y wher e a st at ut e pr ovi des f or i t , " some except i onal condi t i on"

i s pr esent , t he mast er i s needed " t o per f or m an account i ng or

r esol ve a di f f i cul t comput at i on of damages, " or t he di st r i ct cour t

9 The pr ocedur e i s t wel ve shor t par agr aphs i n l engt h, and i ti ncl udes i mport ant i nf or mat i on such as t he addr ess t o whi chr ei mbur sement cl ai ms shoul d be sent , t he document s t hat vehi cl e

owner s must at t ach t o t hei r cl ai ms, and t he l engt h of t i me thatvehi cl e owners can expect t o wai t between submi ssi on of t hei rr ei mbur sement cl ai ms and r ecei pt of payment f r omt he Commonweal t h.Whi l e t he Commonweal t h submi t t ed an unsworn decl arat i on af t er oralar gument aver r i ng t hat t hi s i nf or mat i on i s now avai l abl e onl i ne,t he di st r i ct cour t has not f ound t hat al l or al most al l cl assmembers ar e i nt ernet user s.

-24-


25/32

cannot "ef f ect i vel y and t i mel y" addr ess pr et r i al or post - t r i al

mat t er s. Fed. R. Ci v. P. 53( a) ( 1) . Yet , pl ai nt i f f s do not ci t e

any st at ut e t hat pr ovi des f or t he appoi nt ment of a mast er her e;

t hey do not expl ai n why t hi s case i s " except i onal " ; t he onl y f or ms

of r el i ef r equest ed at t hi s st age of t he l i t i gat i on ar e decl ar at or y

and i nj unct i ve; and t he di st r i ct cour t i s capabl e of pr oceedi ng

f orward i n a t i mel y and ef f ect i ve manner . Even assumi ng arguendo

t hat Rul e 53 woul d have never t hel ess per mi t t ed t he appoi nt ment of

a speci al mast er her e, t he di st r i ct cour t cer t ai nl y di d not abuse

i t s di scret i on i n deci di ng not t o do so.

C. Award and calculation of interim attorneys' fees

Apar t f r omt hei r chal l enge t o the scope of t he per manent

i nj unct i on, pl ai nt i f f s al so ar gue t hat t he di str i ct cour t er r ed by

( 1) denyi ng pl ai nt i f f s' r equest f or an i nt er i m f ee awar d and

( 2) r ef usi ng t o appl y t he per cent age- of - f unds met hod i n cal cul at i ng

at t or ney' s f ees. We agr ee t hat an i nt er i m awar d i s requi r ed her e,

but we see no er r or i n ref usi ng to empl oy a percent age- of - f unds

appr oach i n set t i ng t he amount of f ees.

1. The award of interim fees

Pl ai nt i f f s asked t he di str i ct cour t f or an i nt er i mawar d

of at t or ney' s f ees. I n a si ngl e- sent ence or der , t he cour t

expl ai ned t hat i t was denyi ng pl ai nt i f f s' mot i on "wi t hout pr ej udi ce

gi ven t he pendi ng appeal . " Thi s cur sory expl anat i on does not

sat i sf y our r equi r ement t hat di st r i ct cour t s adequat el y expl ai n

-25-


26/32

t hei r f ee deci si ons. See T- Peg, I nc. v. Vt . Ti mber Wor ks, I nc. ,

669 F. 3d 59, 63 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ; J anney Mont gomery Scot t LLC v.

Tobi n, 571 F. 3d 162, 166 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .

I t i s bl ack- l et t er l aw t hat t he pendency of an appeal

does not oper at e as an absol ut e bar r i er t o an i nt er i m f ee awar d

under 1988 when a part y "has est abl i shed hi s ent i t l ement t o some

r el i ef on t he mer i t s of hi s cl ai ms. " Hanr ahan v. Hampt on, 446 U. S.

754, 757 ( 1980) ; see al so Hut chi nson ex r el . J ul i en v. Pat r i ck, 636

F. 3d 1, 12 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ; Coal . f or Basi c Human Needs v. Ki ng,

691 F. 2d 597, 602 ( 1st Ci r . 1982) . The pr esent case i s pr eci sel y

t he sor t of l i t i gat i on i n whi ch an awar d of i nt er i m f ees i s cal l ed

f or . The pl ai nt i f f s "pr evai l ed on an i mpor t ant mat t er , " Hannar ah,

446 U. S. at 757, when- - i n Gar c a- Rubi er a I I - - we rul ed t hat t he

Commonweal t h had vi ol at ed t he pr ocedural due pr ocess r i ght s of

hundr eds of t housands of vehi cl e owners acr oss Puert o Ri co. That

r ul i ng i s no l onger subj ect t o r evi si on by t he di st r i ct cour t ( or

by t hi s panel , f or t hat mat t er ) . Pl ai nt i f f s ' "substant i al r i ght , "

Hannarah, 446 U. S. at 757, t o adequat e not i ce has been

r ecogni zed- - al t hough t hei r r el i ef has yet t o ar r i ve.

The Commonweal t h ar gues agai nst an awar d of i nt er i m

at t or ney' s f ees on t he gr ound t hat pl ai nt i f f s ar e somehow at f aul t

f or t he del ay i n ar r i vi ng at a f i nal j udgment : "I f not f or t he

appeal f i l ed by Pl ai nt i f f s chal l engi ng t he l i mi t ed i nj uncti ve

r el i ef , " t he Commonweal t h cont ends, t here i s " no r eason why" t he

-26-


27/32

case coul d not have come t o an end by now. Thi s argument act ual l y

under scor es t he i mpor t ance of al l owi ng i nt er i m f ee awar ds i n cases

l i ke t hi s: counsel ent i t l ed t o a f ee f or success al r eady f i nal l y

achi eved shoul d not be t ol d t hat payment wi l l be del ayed unl ess

t hey f or go addi t i onal vi ndi cat i on of t hei r cl i ent ' s ri ght s on

appeal ( as her e) .

The Ni nt h Ci r cui t conf r ont ed a si mi l ar si t uat i on i n

Tayl or v. West l y ( "Tayl or I I I " ) and i t r eached a si mi l ar r esul t .

525 F. 3d 1288 ( 9t h Ci r . 2008) . There, shar ehol ders whose st ock had

escheat ed t o the St at e of Cal i f or ni a sued t o get t hei r pr oper t y

back; on a second appeal t o t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t , an appel l at e panel

unani mousl y f ound t hat t he st at e had f ai l ed t o pr ovi de t he

shar ehol der s wi t h const i t ut i onal l y adequat e not i ce of t hei r r i ght s.

See Tayl or v. West l y ( "Tayl or I " ) , 402 F. 3d 924, 925- 29 ( 9t h Ci r .

2005) ( f act ual backgr ound) ; Tayl or v. West l y ( "Tayl or I I ") , 488

F. 3d 1197, 1201 ( 9t h Ci r . 2007) ( per cur i am) ( anal ysi s of

const i t ut i onal cl ai ms) . Af t er Tayl or I I , t he Tayl or pl ai nt i f f s

sought an i nt er i m awar d of at t or ney' s f ees f r om t he st at e; t he

di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he r equest ; and t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t r ever sed.

Tayl or I I I , 525 F. 3d at 1290. Whi l e not i ng t hat " i nt er i m

at t or ney' s f ees are t he except i on r at her t han t he rul e, " t he Tayl or

I I I cour t r ul ed t hat such f ees shoul d be awar ded wher e pl ai nt i f f s

have pr evai l ed i n a "di scr et e st age" of t he case and " t he di spar i t y

i n l i t i gat i on r esour ces bet ween par t i es" means t hat "f ai l ur e t o

-27-


28/32

awar d i nt er i mf ees woul d cr eat e a consi der abl e r i sk of st ar vi ng out

pl ai nt i f f s wi t h what we have al r eady det er mi ned t o be good cl ai ms. "

I d.

The Tayl or I I I cour t ' s anal ysi s appl i es wi t h f ul l f or ce

her e. The di st r i ct cour t abused i t s di scr et i on when i t deni ed

pl ai nt i f f s ' mot i on f or i nt er i m at t or ney' s f ees due onl y t o t he

pendency of an appeal , over l ooki ng t he f act t hat pl ai nt i f f s had

al r eady pr evai l ed on t he mer i t s of t hei r pr ocedur al due pr ocess

cl ai ms and despi t e t he di spar i t y i n l i t i gat i on r esour ces bet ween

t he par t i es. On r emand, t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d make an award of

at t or ney' s f ees t o pl ai nt i f f s i n an amount det er mi ned by t he cour t

t o be suf f i ci ent t o cover t he compensabl e wor k per f or med f r om t he

begi nni ng of t hi s act i on t hr ough t he dat e of t hi s opi ni on.

2. The calculation of fees

Pl ai nt i f f s al so ar gue t hat t he di st r i ct cour t was wr ong

t o deny t hei r mot i on t hat t he f i nal f ee awar d be cal cul at ed usi ng

t he per cent age- of - f unds appr oach i nst ead of t he l odest ar met hod.

I t i s uncl ear , however , i f t he di str i ct cour t ' s or der i s

suf f i ci ent l y f i nal t o gi ve us j ur i sdi ct i on t o addr ess the i ssue.

28 U. S. C. 1291. The di st r i ct cour t i ndi cat ed i n a one- sent ence

or der t hat i t woul d event ual l y use the l odest ar met hod t o cal cul at e

t he t ot al amount of at t or neys' f ees, but di d not at t empt t o

actual l y determi ne t he amount of f ees whi ch shoul d be awarded. I n

some ci r cumst ances, awards of at t orneys' f ees may be revi ewed

-28-


29/32

bef or e a case has been def i ni t i vel y r esol ved on t he mer i t s. I n r e

Ni net een Appeal s Ar i si ng Out of San J uan Dupont Pl aza Hot el Fi r e

Li t i g. , 982 F. 2d 603, 610 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) . But such r evi ew i s onl y

per mi ssi bl e wher e t he awar d "def i ni t i vel y r esol ves cl ai ms f or

at t or neys' f ees. " I d.

A r ul i ng on at t or neys' f ees i s def i ni t i ve "wher e a

dol l ar - speci f i c or der f or at t or neys' f ees has been ent er ed and

f ur t her act i on on t he mai n case wi l l not r equi r e r evi si t i ng t hat

or der . " I d. at 609 n. 10. The onl y except i on t hat we ar e awar e of

t o t hi s gener al r ul e i s t he "pecul i ar ci r cumst ance" wher e a f i nal

amount of at t orneys' f ees has not been determi ned but t here i s " a

f i nal j udgment on t he onl y i ssue i n whi ch [ t he appeal i ng par t y]

st i l l had an i nt er est . " Boei ng Co. v. Van Gemer t , 444 U. S. 472,

482 n. 7 ( 1980) . Her e, i n cont r ast , t her e r emai n i ssues regar di ng

at t or neys' f ees i n whi ch pl ai nt i f f s' have an i nt er est and whi ch

have not been r esol ved by t he Di st r i ct Cour t . For exampl e, we have

r emanded f or f ur t her consi der at i on of t he cl ass def i ni t i on. The

di st r i ct cour t ' s det er mi nat i on of t hi s i ssue may af f ect t he t ot al

amount of f ees awarded. Even i f we determi ned def i ni t i vel y t hat we

had j ur i sdi ct i on t o r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s or der on t he choi ce

of f ee- awar d mechani sm, we woul d decl i ne t o exer ci se i t i n or der t o

gi ve t he di st r i ct cour t an oppor t uni t y t o expl ai n i t s r easoni ng

mor e f ul l y af t er r esol vi ng t he ot her i ssues bef or e i t on r emand.

-29-


30/32

Our or der t hat t he di st r i ct cour t make an i nt er i m awar d

of at t or neys' f ees, however , i t sel f r ai ses t he quest i on of how t o

cal cul at e t he amount of such a f ee awar d. That quest i on, i n t ur n,

may requi r e t he cour t t o ant i ci pat e how i t woul d cal cul at e a f i nal

awar d so as t o ensur e t hat i nt er i m and f i nal awar ds can be

r econci l ed. We t her ef or e of f er t he f ol l owi ng gui dance f or r emand.

A di st r i ct cour t can har dl y go wr ong i n sel ect i ng t he so-

cal l ed l odest ar met hod when cal l ed upon t o det ermi ne how much of an

at t or neys' f ee a l osi ng def endant need pay a pr evai l i ng pl ai nt i f f .

Per due v. Kenny A. ex r el . Wi nn, 130 S. Ct . 1662, 1673 ( 2010) ;

Cout i n v. Young & Rubi cam P. R. I nc. , 124 F. 3d 331, 337 ( 1st Ci r .

1997) . Pl ai nt i f f s never t hel ess ar gue t hat t he di st r i ct cour t i n

t hi s case can and shoul d base ei t her t he i nt er i mor f i nal f ee awar d

on a per cent age- of - f unds appr oach. Thi s appr oach "appl [ i es] onl y

where at t orneys seek compensat i on f r om a di scer nabl e pot of money

won by t he pl ai nt i f f s. " I n r e Vol kswagen & Audi Warr ant y Ext ensi on

Li t i g. , 692 F. 3d 4, 16 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . Wher e t hi s appr oach i s

appl i cabl e, a cour t may compensat e Pl ai nt i f f s' counsel by awar di ng

t hema per cent age of t he pot of money recover ed f or t he pl ai nt i f f s.

I d. Pl ai nt i f f s suggest t hey shoul d r ecei ve a per cent age of t he

t ot al f unds t hat escheat ed t o t he Commonweal t h. Amounts not

r ef unded to cl ass member s f ol l owi ng due not i ce, however , wi l l

bel ong t o the Commonweal t h, pr ovi di ng nei t her a di r ect nor i ndi r ect

-30-


31/32

benef i t t o cl ass member s. Ther ef or e, t hey wi l l not be par t of any

common f und of whi ch Pl ai nt i f f s' counsel mi ght cl ai ma per cent age. 10

A per cent age- of - f unds approach based on t he amount of

f unds r ef unded, whi l e bet t er j ust i f i ed i n t heor y, i s unwor kabl e i n

t hi s case. The di st r i ct cour t cannot know t he appr oxi mate amount

of r ef unds made unt i l af t er t he ref unds have been pai d out over a

per i od of year s. Hence, i t i s not possi bl e t o know what per cent age

award woul d generate what t otal amount . I f f ew r ef unds ar e

cl ai med, a 30 per cent awar d coul d be t oo l i t t l e. Yet i f most

r ef unds ar e cl ai med, 10 percent coul d be t oo much. And once one

knows af t er t he f act how much has been pai d out , t here wi l l r emai n

no pot of money not due t he Commonweal t h out of whi ch counsel mi ght

r ecei ve a percent age. I n such a si t uat i on we know of no pr ecedent

r equi r i ng t he use of any method other t han t he l odest ar method.

III. CONCLUSION

I n concl usi on, t he di st r i ct cour t ' s per manent i nj unct i on

i s vacat ed; and t he cour t ' s or der denyi ng pl ai nt i f f s' mot i on f or an

i nt er i m awar d of at t or ney' s f ees i s r ever sed. We or der t hat no

dupl i cate pr emi ums shal l escheat t o t he Commonweal t h unt i l i t has

est abl i shed and compl i ed wi t h a r ei mbur sement procedure whi ch meet s

10 Boei ng i s not t o t he cont r ar y. The f i nal j udgment i n Boei ngwas f or a sum cer t ai n, wi t h pr o r at a shar es t o be cl ai med by cl assmembers merel y upon r equest and pr oof of i dent i t y. 444 U. S. at479. Her e, t he j udgment i s i n t he f or m of i nj unct i ve anddecl ar at i ve r el i ef , maki ng cl ear t hat t he Commonweal t h wi l l have t opay onl y what i s pr oper l y cl ai med. See i d. at 479 n. 5.

-31-


32/32

t he basi c r equi r ement s of const i t ut i onal due pr ocess. Cost s ar e

awar ded t o t he Pl ai nt i f f s. We r emand t o t he di st r i ct cour t f or

f ur t her pr oceedi ngs consi st ent wi t h t hi s opi ni on.

-32-

Documents

Garcia-Rubiera v. Fortuno, 1st Cir. (2013)