Rosaura Building Corp. v. Municipality of Mayaguez, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Rosaura Building Corp. v. Municipality of Mayaguez, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/27

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1676

ROSAURA BUI LDI NG CORP. ,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

MUNI CI PALI TY OF MAYAGEZ, ET AL. ,

Def endant , Appel l ees.

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

[ Hon. Cami l l e L. Vl ez- Ri v, U. S. Magi st r at e J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Dyk, * and Thompson,

Ci r cui t J udges.

I sr ael Rol dn- Gonzl ez, f or appel l ant .El i ezer A. Al dar ondo- Lpez, wi t h whom El i ezer A. Al dar ondo-

Or t i z, Cl audi o Al i f f - Or t i z and Al dar ondo & Lpez- Br as, wer e onbr i ef f or appel l ees.

Febr uary 4, 2015

* Of t he Feder al Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/27

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Rosaur a Bui l di ng Corp.

( "Rosaur a" ) br ought t hi s 1983 cl ai m based on an al l eged

depr i vat i on of i t s Fi r st Amendment const i t ut i onal r i ght s by t he

Muni ci pal i t y of Mayagez, Puer t o Ri co, and i t s mayor , t he Honor abl e

J os G. Rodr guez ( "Rodr guez" or t he "Mayor " ) , af t er Rodr guez

deni ed t he cor por at i on a gover nment cont r act . Rosaur a f ai l s t o

al l ege what pr ot ect ed act i vi t y - - i f any - - i t exer ci sed and was a

subst ant i al mot i vat i ng f act or i n br i ngi ng about t he Mayor ' s

pur por t ed r et al i at i on, essent i al el ement s of i t s cause of act i on,

and thus we af f i r m t he summar y j udgment gr ant ed i n f avor of t he

Def endant s.

I. Background

We r evi ew t he f act s i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he

appel l ant , t he part y opposi ng summary j udgment . Agust y- Reyes v.

Dep' t of Educ. of P. R. , 601 F. 3d 45, 48 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) .

A. Factual Background

Rosaur a i s a f ami l y- owned corporat i on whose pr i nci pal

pl ace of busi ness and sol e asset i s a commer ci al pr oper t y l ocat ed

at 107 Post St r eet Sout h i n t he ci t y of Mayagez. Dur i ng t he

summer of 2010, sever al of f i ci al s f r omt he ci t y- oper at ed Head St ar t

pr ogr am ( "Head St ar t " or t he "Pr ogr am") , 1 i ncl udi ng i t s di r ect or ,

1 Head St ar t pr ogr ams suppor t t he devel opment of l ow- i ncomechi l dr en f r om bi r t h t o age 5 t o pr omot e t hei r school r eadi ness.The programs provi de educat i on, heal t h, nut r i t i on, soci al , andot her servi ces t o chi l dr en and t hei r f ami l i es. See 42 U. S. C. 9831.

-2-


3/27

Ms. El ba I . Fal t o de Romn, and t he f aci l i t i es mai nt enance

super vi sor , exami ned the pr oper t y t o det er mi ne whet her i t was

sui t abl e f or Head St ar t cl assr ooms. Fi ndi ng t hat i t was

appr opr i at e f or t hei r needs, t he ci t y of f i ci al s r ecommended t he

l ease and asked ot her empl oyees t o vi si t t he pr oper t y, i ncl udi ng

t he pr ogr am' s sub- di r ect or and t he ci t y' s super vi sor s f or

educat i on, nut r i t i on, and heal t h. These of f i ci al s al so unani mousl y

r ecommended t he bui l di ng over sever al others exami ned, because i t

was t he most accessi bl e and i t compl i ed wi t h al l t he needs of t he

Pr ogram.

Fal t o de Romn met wi t h repr esent at i ves f r omRosaur a and

negot i at ed t he t er ms of t he pr oposed l ease. Then, she i nst r uct ed

t hem t o cont act Ms. Ana Mar t nez t o hel p t hem wi t h f i l i ng a

necessary cont r act pet i t i on f or m. Mar t nez f or war ded t he cont r act

pet i t i on t o t he Head St ar t Pr ogr am Fi nance Uni t , and t o of f i ci al s

i n t he ci t y' s Depar t ment of Fi nance. Al l of t hem cer t i f i ed t hat

t he Pr ogr amand t he ci t y had t he resour ces necessar y t o compl y wi t h

t he pr oposed cont r act ual t er ms. Fol l owi ng t he ci t y' s usual

bur eaucr at i c pr ocess, Mar t nez sent t he cont r act t o the Cont r act s

Commi t t ee, an of f i ce di r ect ed by t he Mayor ' s br ot her , whi ch al so

r ecommended t hat t he cont r act pet i t i on be appr oved. Wi t h t hi s

appr oval , Mar t nez t ol d r epr esent at i ves f r om Rosaur a t hat

ever ythi ng was " r eady" f or t he cont r act t o be execut ed, and sent

t he dr af t cont r act t o t he ci t y' s Legal Di vi si on. Ever yt hi ng seemed

-3-


4/27

t o be on t r ack unt i l t he Legal Di vi si on unexpect edl y r epl i ed t hat

t her e was a pr obl em and t he cont r act coul d not be si gned.

Fal t o de Romn was sur pr i sed by t he r ej ect i on. She

bel i eved t hat Rosaur a' s bui l di ng was t he onl y one avai l abl e t hat

compl i ed wi t h t he Progr am' s r equi r ement s and that Rosaur a had made

t he best of f er dur i ng t he sear ch pr ocess. Mor eover , t he Pr ogr am

was t i me- pr essed t o open t he much- needed addi t i onal cl assr ooms.

Shor t l y t her eaf t er , Fal t o de Romn r ecei ved a l et t er f r omt he Mayor

st at i ng t hat al l of t he Pr ogr am' s cont r act s woul d need t o have hi s

appr oval - - a depar t ur e f r om pr i or pr act i ce. She acknowl edged t he

l et t er i n wr i t i ng and r ecei ved a not e i n r esponse f r om t he Mayor

sayi ng " [ t ] hat l ease does not pr oceed. " Fal t o de Romn not i f i ed

r epr esent at i ves f r om Rosaur a t hat t he cont r act had not been

appr oved by t he Mayor . I nst ead, t he Pr ogr am par t i ci pant s wer e

pl aced i n pr ovi si onal cent er s bel ongi ng t o an al l eged pol i t i cal

support er of t he Mayor .

Aggr i eved by t hi s si t uat i on, Mr . Nst or Pagn- Vl ez, one

of t he shar ehol der s of Rosaur a, asked t he Mayor i n per son about hi s

r ej ect i on of t he cont r act . He cl ai med i n hi s deposi t i on t hat t he

Mayor r esponded t hat he "[ woul d] not si gn cont r act s wi t h [ . . . ]

wi t h enemi es of mi ne, whi ch i s what . . . you al r eady know, whi ch

i s what your br other and your nephew are. " Pagn- Vl ez,

i nt er pr et ed t hi s as a ref er ence t o hi s br ot her , Mr . V ct or Pagn-

Vl ez, and hi s ni ece, Ms. Mi gnoni a Acost a- Pagn. These t wo had

-4-


5/27

been member s of t he Muni ci pal Legi sl at ur e of Mayagez, pr i or t o t he

2008 el ect i ons, and wer e oust ed by t he Mayor af t er a scuf f l e wi t hi n

t he l ocal l eader shi p of t he Popul ar Democr at i c Par t y ( "PDP") . 2

B. Procedural History

Rosaur a br ought a ci vi l r i ght s cl ai mf or equi t abl e r el i ef

and damages pur suant t o 42 U. S. C. 1983 agai nst t he Mayor , i n hi s

of f i ci al and per sonal capaci t i es, and t he muni ci pal gover nment ( t he

"Def endant s") , al l egi ng i ni t i al l y t hat i t had been r et al i at ed

agai nst because of t he pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on of i t s shar ehol der s. 3

I t ar gued per f unct or i l y t hat t he act i ons t aken by t he Def endant s

wer e "sol el y mot i vat ed by t he pl ai nt i f f ' s pol i t i cal bel i ef s" si nce

Rosaur a' s " shar ehol der s ar e i dent i f i ed wi t h a f act i on wi t hi n t he

[ PDP] t hat chal l enged t he l eader shi p of def endant J os Gui l l er mo

Rodr guez, wi t hi n t he same pol i t i cal par t y. " I t cl ai med i n a

br i ef , concl usor y manner t hat t hese act i ons vi ol at ed i t s

const i t ut i onal r i ght s under t he Fi r st , Fi f t h, and Four t eent h

Amendment s. Wi t hout f ur t her expl anat i on, t he compl ai nt r equest ed

2 The Mayor l at er cal l ed Fal t o de Romn and quest i oned hercommuni cat i ons wi t h t he shar ehol ders of Rosaur a and her expl anat i onas t o why t hei r cont r act was not appr oved. She t ol d hi m what herexpl anat i on t o the shar ehol der s had been: t hat Rodr guez hadr ej ect ed i t . The Mayor f ur i ousl y r epl i ed t hat she had t o be l oyal

t o hi m. She was t hen t ermi nat ed. Fal t o de Romn al so sued t heMayor , and her case r emai ns pendi ng. See Fal t o de Romn v. Mun.Gov' t of Mayagez, et al . , 2014 WL 460865 ( D. P. R. Feb. 5, 2014) .

3 V ct or Pagn- Vl ez and Mi gnoni a Acost a- Pagn are notshar ehol der s of Rosaur a. Not hi ng i n t he r ecor d suggest s t hat t heyar e af f i l i at ed wi t h t he cor por at i on i n any way.

-5-


6/27

i nj unct i ve r el i ef or der i ng t he muni ci pal i t y t o si gn t he l ease

cont r act, pr ohi bi t i ng Def endant s f r om f ur t her acts of pol i t i cal

di scr i mi nat i on, and monetary damages.

The Def endant s f i l ed a mot i on t o di smi ss t hat was granted

i n part as t o the muni ci pal government by way of a docket order , on

t he gr ounds t hat t he compl ai nt f ai l ed t o pl ead a sci nt i l l a of f act s

t hat coul d l ead t o l i abi l i t y by t he muni ci pal gover nment pur suant

t o Monel l v. Depar t ment of Soci al Ser vi ces, 436 U. S. 658, 695- 701

( 1978) . No corr espondi ng j udgment was i ssued wi t h r egar d t o t hi s

docket order . 4 Over a year - and- a- hal f l at er , Def endant s r equest ed

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ent er a j udgment di smi ssi ng t he cl ai ms

agai nst t he Mayor i n hi s per sonal capaci t y si nce t her e was no

al l egat i on i n t he compl ai nt agai nst hi m i n hi s per sonal capaci t y,

and he had onl y been ser ved i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y. The di st r i ct

cour t deni ed t he request f or di smi ssal because t he Def endant s had

al so f i l ed a mot i on f or summary j udgment on t he same day, t ogether

wi t h a memor andum of l aw i n i t s suppor t , al l egi ng t hat t her e i s no

cogni zabl e cl ai m f or Fi r st Amendment r et al i at i on. The di st r i ct

cour t opt ed f or consi der i ng t he summary j udgment mot i on i nst ead.

Af t er r evi ewi ng t he r ecor d, i ncl udi ng t he mot i on t o

di smi ss t hat had been gr ant ed by the docket or der , t he di st r i ct

cour t ent er ed t he cor r espondi ng j udgment di smi ssi ng t he cl ai ms as

4 The par t i es subsequent l y consent ed f or t he case to be deci ded bya magi st r at e j udge. We r ef er t o t he magi st r ate j udge and t hedi str i ct cour t as t he "di str i ct cour t " f or si mpl i ci t y.

-6-


7/27

t o t he muni ci pal gover nment . I t agr eed t hat t he compl ai nt

cont ai ned no al l egat i ons agai nst t he muni ci pal i t y and st r essed t hat

Rosaur a never r equest ed l eave to amend the compl ai nt t o add

al l egat i ons r egar di ng t hat def endant . I t al so di smi ssed t he cl ai ms

agai nst t he Mayor i n hi s per sonal capaci t y because he was never

ser ved wi t h pr ocess as such. Fi nal l y, t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed

summary j udgment i n f avor of t he Mayor on t he cl ai ms r emai ni ng

agai nst hi m i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y. Regar di ng t he Fi r st

Amendment cl ai m, t he di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat t hi s Cour t has never

extended t he Fi r st Amendment ant i - r et al i at i on pr ot ect i on of

government cont r actors, r ecogni zed by t he Supr eme Cour t i n Boar d of

Count y Commi ss i oners v. Umbehr , t o f i r st - t i me bi dders of government

cont r act s. 518 U. S. 668, 686 ( 1996) . That i s, t he Supr eme Cour t

and t hi s Cour t have not extended t he pr otect i ons r ecogni zed by

Umbehr f or exi st i ng gover nment cont r act ors t o part i es t hat do not

have exi st i ng cont r act ual r el at i onshi ps wi t h a st at e act or .

The di st r i ct cour t not ed t hat i t was uncont est ed t hat

Rosaur a never had a cont r act wi t h t he ci t y, an i mpor t ant f act f or

t he i nst ant appeal as expl ai ned bel ow. I t concl uded t hat "upon

absence of Fi r st Ci r cui t Cour t pr ecedent r ecogni zi ng an i ndependent

cont r actor wi t hout pr i or busi ness r el at i onshi p t o r ai se Fi r st

Amendment cl ai ms, and t he spl i t among other ci r cui t s on t he i ssue, "

i t woul d deny t he cause of act i on. Thus, i t di smi ssed t he Fi r st

-7-


8/27

Amendment cl ai m. I t al so di smi ssed t he equal pr otect i on cl ai m,

t hough wi t hout any anal ysi s. Thi s appeal by Rosaur a ensued.

II. Discussion

We r evi ew a di st r i ct cour t ' s grant of summary j udgment de

novo, dr awi ng al l i nf er ences i n f avor of t he non- movant . See

East man Kodak Co. v. I mage Techni cal Ser vs. , I nc. , 504 U. S. 451,

456 (1992) ; Shaf mast er v. Uni t ed St at es, 707 F. 3d 130, 135 ( 1st

Ci r . 2013) . Summary j udgment shal l be gr ant ed i f " t he movant shows

t hat t her e i s no genui ne di sput e as t o any mat er i al f act and t he

movant i s ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. " Fed. R. Ci v.

P. 56( a) . "[ C] oncl usor y al l egat i ons, empt y r het or i c, unsuppor t ed

specul at i on, or evi dence whi ch, i n t he aggr egat e, i s l ess t han

si gni f i cant l y pr obat i ve wi l l not suf f i ce t o war d of f a pr oper l y

suppor t ed summary j udgment mot i on. " Ni eves- Romero v. Uni t ed

St at es, 715 F. 3d 375, 378 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( quot i ng Rogan v. Ci t y of

Bos. , 267 F. 3d 24, 27 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) ) .

The de novo st andar d of r evi ew does not l i mi t t hi s Cour t

t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r at i onal e, as we may af f i r m on "any gr ound

r eveal ed by t he r ecor d. " Houl t on Ci t i zens Coal . v. Town of

Houl t on, 175 F. 3d 178, 184 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) .

A. Dismissal of Claims Against the Municipal Government

I n i t s appeal , Rosaur a al l eges t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

er r ed i n di smi ssi ng t he cl ai ms agai nst t he muni ci pal gover nment

-8-


9/27

under Monel l , af t er i t f ound t hat Rosaur a f ai l ed t o pl ead a

sci nt i l l a of f act s agai nst t hat gover nment ent i t y. Rosaur a ar gues

t hat a cl ai m agai nst t he Mayor i n t hi s cont ext bi nds t he

muni ci pal i t y as wel l . I n t hei r br i ef , t he Def endant s appear t o

concede Rosaur a' s cont ent i on based on Sur pr enant v. Ri vas, 424 F. 3d

5, 19 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) . Accor di ng t o t he Def endant s, shoul d t hi s

Cour t r ever se t he det er mi nat i on on t he mer i t s, t he Mayor woul d

st i l l be a def endant i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y, and j oi ni ng t he

muni ci pal gover nment woul d r esul t i n a dupl i cat i ve cl ai m. Al t hough

t hi s i s not t he r easoni ng f ol l owed by t he di st r i ct cour t , i t

pr esent s an al t er nat e basi s t o af f i r m t he di smi ssal gr ant ed as t o

t he muni ci pal government . We agr ee.

A sui t agai nst a publ i c of f i ci al i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y

i s a sui t agai nst t he gover nment ent i t y. Supr enant , 424 F. 3d at

19; Wood v. Hancock Cnt y. Sher i f f ' s Dep' t , 354 F. 3d 57, 58 n. 1 ( 1st

Ci r . 2003) . The r eason f or t hi s rul e i s t hat "i t i s when [ t he]

execut i on of a government ' s pol i cy or cust om, whether made by i t s

l awmaker s or by t hose whose edi ct s or act s may f ai r l y be sai d t o

r epr esent of f i ci al pol i cy, i nf l i ct s t he i nj ur y t hat t he gover nment

as an ent i t y i s responsi bl e under 1983. " Monel l , 436 U. S. at

694; see al so Pembaur v. Ci t y of Ci nci nnat i , 475 U. S. 469, 481

( 1986) ( " [ W] her e act i on i s di r ect ed by t hose who est abl i sh

gover nment al pol i cy, t he muni ci pal i t y i s equal l y responsi bl e

whet her t hat act i on i s t o be t aken onl y once or t o be t aken

-9-


10/27

r epeat edl y. " ) . We have al so expl ai ned t hat a muni ci pal government

i s l i abl e when i t has caused t he depr i vat i on of a const i t ut i onal

r i ght t hr ough an of f i ci al pol i cy or cust om. See Rodr guez v.

Muni ci pal i t y of San J uan, 659 F. 3d 168, 181 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . "One

way of est abl i shi ng a pol i cy or cust omi s by showi ng t hat ' a per son

wi t h f i nal pol i cy maki ng aut hor i t y' caused t he supposed

const i t ut i onal i nj ur y. " I d. ( quot i ng Wel ch v. Ci ampa, 542 F. 3d

927, 941- 42 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ) . Li abi l i t y may be i mposed on a

muni ci pal i t y f or a si ngl e deci si on by a f i nal pol i cy maker .

Rodr guez- Gar c a v. Mi r anda- Mar n, 610 F. 3d 756, 770 ( 1st Ci r .

2010) .

Mayor s i n Puer t o Ri co ar e t he gover nment of f i ci al s

ul t i mat el y r esponsi bl e f or empl oyment deci si ons of t he

muni ci pal i t y. See i d. ( quot i ng Rodr guez- Gar c a v. Muni ci pal i t y of

Caguas, 495 F. 3d 1, 12 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ) ; AcevedoGar c a v. Monr oi g,

351 F. 3d 547, 553 n. 1 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( not i ng t hat under Puer t o

Ri co l aw, mayor s of muni ci pal i t i es have t he power t o appoi nt and

r emove muni ci pal of f i ci al s and empl oyees, and thus a mayor ' s

"empl oyment deci si ons i pso f act o const i t ut ed t he of f i ci al pol i cy of

t he muni ci pal i t y" ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on omi t t ed) ) .

Because Umbehr si mpl y ext ends empl oyment prot ect i ons t o

cont r act ors, t he same anal ysi s appl i cabl e t o empl oyment deci si ons

governs i n t hi s case. See Umbehr , 518 U. S. at 674.

-10-


11/27

I n the i nst ant appeal , t he Def endant s expr essl y concede

t hat i t was excl usi vel y t he Mayor ' s deci si on t o deny the cont r act

t hat caused Rosaur a' s pur por t ed const i t ut i onal i nj ur y. Based on

t he f or egoi ng, t he Def endant s ar e cor r ect t hat t her e i s no

pr act i cal ef f ect i n di smi ssi ng t he cl ai ms agai nst t he muni ci pal

gover nment . Ther ef or e, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not er r i n gr ant i ng

t he di smi ssal of t he cl ai ms agai nst t he Muni ci pal i t y of Mayagez.

B. The First Amendment Claim

1. The "Newly Discovered Facts"

Ther e i s one ot her procedur al wr i nkl e t hat we must i r on

out bef ore r eachi ng t he mer i t s of Rosaur a' s Fi r st Amendment cl ai m.

One week bef ore or al argument s, Rosaur a f i l ed an "Ur gent Mot i on

I nf or mi ng New Fact s That Mi ght Af f ect Thi s Appeal . " I n t hat

mot i on, Rosaur a cl ai med - - f or t he f i r st t i me - - t hat i t s

shar ehol der s had j ust i nf or med i t s l awyer t hat t hey "had a pr evi ous

cont r act wi t h t he Muni ci pal i t y of Mayaguez. " I t f ur t her r equest ed

t hat we consi der t hi s as a mat t er of f act when r esol vi ng t he case,

or , i n t he al t er nat i ve, t hat we r emand t he case t o t he di st r i ct

cour t so t hat i t can r econsi der i t s di smi ssal . Rosaur a cl ai ms t hat

t hi s new f act makes Umbehr di sposi t i ve of t he i nst ant cont r over sy

and t hat i t aut omat i cal l y possesses a cause of act i on.

I n Umbehr , a cont r act or who was an out spoken cr i t i c of a

count y boar d "spoke at t he Boar d' s meet i ngs, and wr ote cr i t i cal

l et t er s and edi t or i al s i n l ocal newspaper s r egar di ng t he Count y' s

-11-


12/27

l andf i l l user r at es, t he cost of obt ai ni ng of f i ci al document s f r om

t he Count y, al l eged vi ol at i ons by t he Boar d of t he Kansas Open

Meet i ngs Act , [ and] t he County' s al l eged mi smanagement of

t axpayer ' s money, " among ot her subj ect s of publ i c i nt er est .

Umbehr , 518 U. S. at 671. The Supr eme Cour t f aced t he quest i on of

whet her t hi s cont r act or was ent i t l ed t o Fi r st Amendment pr ot ect i on

agai nst r et al i at i on over i t s cont r act f or haul i ng t r ash. I d. at

672- 73. The Cour t hel d t hat , based on t he si mi l ar i t i es bet ween

i ndependent cont r act or s and empl oyees, i t was appr opr i at e t o f ol l ow

t he pr ecedent s t hat pr otect ed gover nment empl oyees f r omret al i at i on

f or t hei r publ i c di scour se. I d. at 674 ( "The si mi l ar i t i es bet ween

gover nment empl oyees and gover nment cont r act or s wi t h respect t o

t hi s i ssue ar e obvi ous. ") . Af t er anal yzi ng t he j ust i f i cat i ons

st ated by t he gover nment def endant s, t he Umbehr Cour t concl uded

t hat t he government may t ermi nate cont r act s so l ong as i t does not

do so i n r et al i at i on f or pr ot ect ed act i vi t y, i n t he same manner

t hat gover nment empl oyees' cl ai ms f or r et al i at i on ar e subj ect t o

t he anal ysi s est abl i shed i n Pi cker i ng v. Boar d of Educat i on of

Townshi p Hi gh School Di st r i ct 205, 391 U. S. 563 ( 1968) . I d. at 678.

The probl emwi t h Umbehr , as appl i ed t o t he i nst ant case,

i s t hat i t expr essl y r ej ect ed answer i ng whet her t hi s pr ot ect i on

al so ext ends t o f i r st - t i me bi dder s f or gover nment cont r act s. I d.

at 685 ( "Because Umbehr ' s sui t concer ns t he t er mi nat i on of a pr e-

exi st i ng commer ci al r el at i onshi p wi t h t he gover nment , we need not

-12-


13/27

addr ess t he possi bi l i t y of sui t s by bi dder s or appl i cant s f or new

gover nment cont r act s who cannot r el y on such a rel at i onshi p. " ) .

Thus, Rosaura woul d r at her be i n t he same posi t i on as t he pl ai nt i f f

i n Umbehr , who had an ongoi ng cont r act ual r el at i onshi p.

At f i r st gl ance, we shoul d not even t ake t hi s i ssue i nt o

consi der at i on si nce Rosaur a ar gues not hi ng i n i t s mot i on suggest i ng

t hat t he cont r act was i n ef f ect at t he t i me of t he al l eged

r et al i at i on, or t hat any l egal agr eement was breached i n any way as

a r esul t of t he al l eged r et al i at or y conduct . Yet , even assumi ng

t hat i t was, t hi s mot i on wi t h newl y di scover ed f act s does not hel p

Rosaur a f or sever al r easons. Rosaur a f i l ed i t s compl ai nt on

J une 14, 2011. Fr om t hat moment on, i t s onl y l egal st r at egy and

l egal t heor y has been t hat t hi s Cour t shoul d extend t he pr ot ect i ons

r ecogni zed t o exi st i ng cont r act or s i n Umbehr , so t hat f i r st - t i me

bi dder s f or gover nment cont r act s l i ke Rosaur a ar e al so pr ot ect ed. 5

Ti me and t i me agai n we have hel d t hat ar guments not

advanced bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t ar e wai ved. Emp' r I ns. Co. of

Wausau v. OneBeacon Am. I ns. Co. , 744 F. 3d 25, 29 (1st Ci r . 2014)

( "' I t i s a vi r t ual l y i r oncl ad r ul e t hat a par t y may not advance f or

t he f i r st t i me on appeal ei t her a new argument or an ol d ar gument

5 As ment i oned, t he case l aw i n t hi s Ci r cui t has not extendedUmbehr beyond cases "where [ t he] government r etal i at es agai nst acont r actor , or r egul ar pr ovi der of ser vi ces, f or t he exer ci se ofr i ght s of pol i t i cal associ at i on or expr essi on of pol i t i calal l egi ance. " O' Har e Tr uck Ser v. , I nc. v. Ci t y of Nor t hl ake, 518U. S. 712, 715 (1996) ; Gar c a- Gonzl ez v. Pui g- Mor al es, 761 F. 3d 81,92- 93 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

-13-


14/27

t hat depends on a new f act ual pr edi cat e. ' " ) ( ci t i ng Cochr an v. Quest

Sof t war e, I nc. , 328 F. 3d 1, 11 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ) . The onl y t heor y

of t he case advanced by Rosaur a f or over t hr ee year s i s t hat i t di d

not have an exi st i ng cont r act wi t h t he muni ci pal gover nment .

Rosaur a cannot change thi s s i mpl y because a new t heor y now f i t s i t

bet t er . Gener eux v. Raytheon Co. , 754 F. 3d 51, 53 ( 1st Ci r . 2014)

( " [ W] hen a l i t i gant commi t s t o a t heor y of t he case and st i cks t o

t hat t heor y past t he poi nt of no ret ur n, he cannot t her eaf t er

swi t ch t o a di f f er ent t heory si mpl y because i t seems more

at t r acti ve at t he t i me. ") .

Fur t her more, t he pr ocedur e f ol l owed by Rosaur a t o i nf orm

us of t he new f act and obt ai n i t s r equest was i ncor r ect . Appel l at e

r evi ew concent r at es on consi der i ng t he f act ual r ecor d pr esent ed i n

t he t r i al cour t s. See, e. g. , Fed. R. App. P. 10( a) ( def i ni ng t he

r ecor d on appeal as compr i si ng t he evi dence i nt r oduced i n t he t r i al

cour t ) . Thi s i s tr ue of evi dence t hat was avai l abl e dur i ng t r i al .

However , when evi dence i s di scover ed af t er t he case has been

adj udi cat ed by a di st r i ct cour t , i t i s t o be i nt r oduced i nt o t he

r ecor d t hr ough Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 60( b) ( 2) , whi ch

out l i nes t he pr ocedur e f or vacat i ng a j udgment t o addr ess " newl y

di scover ed evi dence t hat , wi t h r easonabl e di l i gence, coul d not have

been di scover ed i n t i me t o move f or a new t r i al . . . . " See Fed.

R. Ci v. P. 60( b) ( 2) . For t hose r easons, i n Puer t o Ri co v. SS Zoe

Col ocot r oni , we hel d t hat par t i es l i t i gat i ng bef or e t hi s Cour t

-14-


15/27

shoul d f i l e a mot i on under Rul e 60( b) t o vacat e a j udgment di r ect l y

wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t , wi t hout seeki ng pr i or l eave f r omt he Cour t

of Appeal s. 601 F. 2d 39, 41 ( 1st Ci r . 1979) . The di st r i ct cour t s

ar e r equi r ed " t o r evi ew any such mot i ons expedi t i ousl y, wi t hi n a

f ew days of t hei r f i l i ng. . . . " I d. at 42. Wher e t he di str i ct

cour t consi der s a mot i on t o have mer i t , i t i ssues a memorandum so

t hat t he movant may pet i t i on t hi s Cour t t o r emand t he case t o t he

di st r i ct cour t f or t he j udgment t o be vacat ed. I d. ; see al so

Uni t ed St at es v. 6 Fox St . , 480 F. 3d 38, 46 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) .

Ot her wi se, a l i t i gant may not r equest on appeal t hat t hi s Cour t

r emand a case t o a di st r i ct cour t f or i t t o consi der an ar gument

t hat t he l i t i gant wai ved bef or e t hat cour t . Toscano v. Chandr i s,

S. A. , 934 F. 2d 383, 386- 87 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) ( hol di ng t hat a l i t i gant

must f ol l ow Col ocot r oni i n such scenar i os) .

I n any event , Rosaur a' s at t empt i s l i kel y doomed because

Rul e 60( c) ( 1) r equi r es t hat mot i ons f or newl y di scover ed evi dence

pur suant t o Rul e 60( b) ( 2) be br ought bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t

"wi t hi n a r easonabl e t i me" and "no more than a year af t er t he ent r y

of t he j udgment . " Fed. R. Ci v. P. 60( c) ( 1) . The j udgment i n t hi s

case was ent er ed by t he di st r i ct cour t on Apr i l 30, 2013, but t he

ur gent mot i on i nf or mi ng t he newl y di scover ed f act was not f i l ed

wi t h us by Rosaur a unt i l J ul y 21, 2014. Ther ef or e, because Rosaur a

f ai l ed t o meet t he one- year l i mi t at i ons per i od avai l abl e under Rul e

60( b) ( 2) , i t coul d onl y have been ent i t l ed t o r el i ef f r om j udgment

-15-


16/27

under Rul e 60( b) ( 6) , whi ch al l ows a cour t t o r el i eve a par t y f r om

a j udgment f or " any ot her r eason t hat j ust i f i es r el i ef . " Fed. R.

Ci v. P. 60( c) ( 6) . Yet , t hi s Cour t ' s pr ecedent s di sal l ow a movant

f r omusi ng t hi s subsect i on t o avoi d t he l i mi t at i ons per i od i mposed

i n cl auses one t hr ough t hr ee, i ncl udi ng Rul e 60( b) ( 2) f or newl y

di scover ed evi dence. See Cot t o v. Uni t ed St at es, 993 F. 2d 274, 278

( 1st Ci r . 1993) ( expl ai ni ng t hat "cl ause ( 6) i s desi gned as a

cat chal l , and a mot i on t her eunder i s onl y appr opr i at e when none of

t he f i r st f i ve subsect i ons per t ai n. ") . Thus, Rosaur a cannot f or ce

i t s mot i on i nt o cl ause si x. Si mon v. Navon, 116 F. 3d 1, 5 ( 1st

Ci r . 1997) ( poi nt i ng out t hat "wer e Rul e 60( b) ( 6) t o al l ow a second

out - of - t i me bi t e at t he same appl e, t he st r i ngent f i nal i t y-

enf or ci ng l i mi t at i on per i od of [ Rul e] 60( b) ( 1) - ( 3) woul d be

evi scer at ed. " ) . Mor eover , Rosaur a f ai l ed t o show " ' ext r aor di nar y

ci r cumst ances' suggest i ng [ i t ] i s f aul t l ess i n t he del ay. " Pi oneer

I nv. Ser vs. Co. v. Br unswi ck Assocs. Lt d. P' shi p, 507 U. S. 380, 393

( 1993) .

For t hese reasons, we deny t he mot i on and move on t o t he

mer i t s.

2. The Merits of the First Amendment Retaliation Claim

Rosaur a r equest s t hat we r ever se t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

gr ant of summar y j udgment , ar gui ng t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n

concl udi ng t hat , because thi s Ci r cui t has not r ecogni zed a cause of

act i on f or Fi r st Amendment r et al i at i on agai nst f i r st - t i me

-16-


17/27

cont r act or s, no such cause of act i on exi st s. Rosaur a i nvi t es us t o

ext end t hese pr ot ect i ons t o pot ent i al cont r act or s whose busi ness i s

deni ed, basi ng i t s pl ea on Oscar Renda Cont r act i ng, I nc. v. Ci t y of

Lubbock, 463 F. 3d 378 ( 5t h Ci r . 2006) . I n t hat case, t he Fi f t h

Ci r cui t hel d t hat havi ng pr i or cont r actual r el at i onshi ps i s not a

r equi r ement f or Fi r st Amendment pr otect i on of i ndependent

cont r act or s, si nce t hi s pr ot ect i on i s anal ogous t o t he pr ot ect i ons

r ecogni zed t o empl oyees, whi ch al so extend t o hi r i ng deci si ons on

appl i cant s f or empl oyment wi t h t he government , pur suant t o Rut an v.

Republ i can Par t y of I l l . , 497 U. S. 62, 79 ( 1990) ; see Oscar Renda,

463 F. 3d at 380, 385.

On the ot her hand, t he Def endant s ask us t o f ol l ow Bar r y

v. Mor an, 661 F. 3d 696, 706 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( di smi ssi ng a pol i t i cal

di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m pr emi sed on per sonal , not pol i t i cal

associ at i on) . Def endant s ar gue t hat Bar r y r equi r es evi dence t hat

t he associ at i on bei ng r et al i at ed agai nst i s pol i t i cal i n nat ur e and

const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed, r at her t han si mpl y per sonal . Al so,

t hey cl ai mt hat pur suant t o Cor r ea- Mar t nez v. Ar r i l l aga- Bel ndez,

903 F. 2d 49 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) , a pl ai nt i f f ' s r el at i onshi p wi t h

someone wi t h whomt he def endant s had pol i t i cal di f f er ence does not

r i se t o engagi ng i n const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ected acti vi t y. I n t he

i nst ant appeal , as Def endant s expl ai n, Rosaur a' s cl ai m, r at her t han

bei ng pr emi sed on r et al i at i on r esul t i ng f r om i t s engagement i n

pr ot ected act i vi t y, i s f r amed upon t he r el at i onshi p of a t hi r d

-17-


18/27

par t y t hat i s not a pl ai nt i f f - Rosaur a' s shar ehol der s - wi t h

r el at i ves of t hei r s, an associ at i on t hat i s not pol i t i cal i n

nat ur e. Thus, t her e i s no f act ual basi s t o suppor t t hat Rosaur a,

or even i t s shar ehol der s, engaged i n const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed

act i vi t y r egar di ng mat t er s of publ i c i nt er est , or t hat such

const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed act i vi t y was t he dr i vi ng cause of t he

al l eged r et al i at ory r esponse. We agr ee wi t h t he Def endant s.

I n i t s compl ai nt , Rosaur a pl eaded a f ew per f unct or y,

concl usor y st at ement s t hat i ni t i al l y seemed t o al i gn i t s cl ai mwi t h

a pl ai n pol i t i cal di scr i mi nat i on case, by al l egi ng br i ef l y t hat t he

act i ons of t he Def endant s wer e mot i vat ed by Rosaur a' s pol i t i cal

bel i ef s, t hat t he i t s shar ehol der ' s pol i t i cal bel i ef s wer e known t o

t he Def endant s, and t hat t he shar ehol der s of Rosaur a ar e i dent i f i ed

wi t h a f act i on wi t hi n t he PDP that chal l enged t he Mayor i n t he

past . Yet , t her e ar e no f ur t her al l egat i ons r egar di ng t hose

st at ement s el sewher e i n t he r ecord. Rosaur a changed t he st ory f r om

t hat poi nt on, and has st at ed r epeat edl y that t he r et al i at i on was

caused by t he r el at i onshi p bet ween t he shar ehol der s and t hei r

rel at i ves, not because of t he pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on of i t s

shar ehol der s. Fromt hat poi nt on, Rosaur a pl eaded, ar gued, opposed

t he mot i on f or summary j udgment , and appeal ed f r ami ng i t s case

excl usi vel y as a pol i t i cal r et al i at i on case t hat depended squar el y

on Umbehr . Rosaur a t her eby abandoned t he possi bi l i t y of br i ngi ng

t hi s as a di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m, whi l e i nst ead expr essl y advanci ng

-18-


19/27

a r et al i at i on cause of acti on. "[ T] he set t l ed appel l at e r ul e [ i s]

t hat i ssues adver t ed t o i n a per f unct ory manner , unaccompani ed by

some ef f or t at devel oped argument at i on, are deemed wai ved. " I n r e

Pl aza Resor t at Pal mas, I nc. , 741 F. 3d 269, 277 ( 1st Ci r .

2014) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Zanni no, 895

F. 2d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ) . I n i t s br i ef , Rosaur a does not even

ment i on t hose concl usor y al l egat i ons i t had i ncl uded i n i t s

compl ai nt .

Rosaur a' s al l egat i ons per t ai ni ng t o t he Mayor ' s conduct

ar e al so l i mi t ed t o hi m not si gni ng t he l ease i n r et al i at i on f or

hi s pr i or di sput e wi t h t he br ot her and ni ece of one of Rosaur a' s

shar ehol der . Accor di ngl y, we exami ne t he i nst ant appeal as a Fi r st

Amendment r et al i at i on case based on t hat non- pol i t i cal associ at i on

on whi ch Rosaur a pr emi sed i t s case.

Al t hough pol i t i cal di scri mi nat i on and r et al i at i on cases

ar e i nt r i nsi cal l y si mi l ar , and, i n cer t ai n ci r cumst ances, cour t s

eval uate t he evi dence i n t he same manner , t he two causes of act i on

ar e qui t e di st i nct . Mer cado- Ber r os v. Cancel - Al egr a, 611 F. 3d

18, 22 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) . Under pol i t i cal di scr i mi nat i on cases,

"gover nment of f i ci al s ar e f or bi dden f r om t aki ng adver se act i on

agai nst publ i c empl oyees on t he basi s of pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on or

bel i ef . " Mer cado- Ber r os, 611 F. 3d at 22 ( ci t i ng Wel ch, 542 F. 3d

at 938) ; Rut an, 497 U. S. at 64 ( 1990) .

-19-


20/27


21/27

I n t hese ci r cumst ances, t o pr evai l on a 1983 cl ai m of

r et al i at i on f or Fi r st Amendment act i vi t y, a pl ai nt i f f must show:

( 1) t hat hi s conduct was const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed, and ( 2) t hat

t hi s conduct was a subst ant i al f act or or a mot i vat i ng f act or f or

t he def endant ' s r et al i at or y deci si on. Pi er ce, 741 F. 3d at 302- 03;

Cent r o Mdi co del Tur abo, 406 F. 3d at 10; Powel l , 391 F. 3d at 17

( quot i ng Mt . Heal t hy Ci t y Sch. Di st . Bd. Of Educ. v. Doyl e, 429

U. S. 274, 287 ( 1977) ) . The Supr eme Cour t has al so out l i ned what a

pl ai nt i f f must show i n or der t o est abl i sh t hat i t s speci f i c conduct

was const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed under t he f i r st pr ong. Ther e ar e

t wo par t i cul ar r equi r ement s that must be met . Fi r st , a publ i c

empl oyee must est abl i sh t hat she was speaki ng "as a ci t i zen on a

mat t er of publ i c concer n. " D az- Bi gi o v. Sant i ni , 652 F. 3d 45, 51

( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( ci t i ng Gar cet t i v. Cebal l os, 547 U. S. 410, 418

( 2006) ) . I f pl ai nt i f f ' s speech i s not on a mat t er of publ i c

concer n, t her e i s no Fi r st Amendment cause of act i on. I d. Second,

t he Fi r st Amendment pr otect i on of t he speech must out wei gh t he

gover nment ' s i nt er est as an empl oyer . I d. ( ci t i ng Ri ver a- J i mnez

v. Pi er l ui si , 362 F. 3d 87, 94 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ) .

Addi t i onal l y, i n or der t o meet t he mot i vat i on pr ong, a

pl ai nt i f f must pr oduce "suf f i ci ent di r ect or ci r cumst ant i al

evi dence" t hat hi s const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed conduct was t he

dr i vi ng f act or that caused t he r et al i at i on. I d. The pl ai nt i f f ' s

bur den i n est abl i shi ng mot i vat i on " i s mor e subst ant i al t han t he

-21-


22/27

bur den of pr oduci ng pr i ma f aci e evi dence i n, f or exampl e, t he f i r st

stage of a Ti t l e VI I di scr i mi nat i on case. " I d. at n. 3 ( ci t i ng

Gui l l ot y Pr ez v. Pi er l ui si , 339 F. 3d 43, 56 n. 11 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ) .

The pl eadi ng st andar d f or t hese el ements of t he cause of

act i on ar e al so wel l - def i ned i n our case l aw. The Fi r st Amendment

does not creat e a const i t ut i onal r evi si on pr ocess f or ever y

government empl oyment deci si on. See Roj as- Vel zquez v. Fi guer oa-

Sancha, 676 F. 3d 206, 210 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . Ther ef or e, i t i s vi t al

f or any cl ai mt o cl ear l y pr esent t he pr ot ect ed act i vi t y on whi ch i t

i s pr emi sed. I d. at 211 ( " [ T] he appel l ant has not aver r ed t hat t he

def endant s' mi sper cept i on r egar di ng hi s pol i t i cal l oyal t y ( or l ack

t hereof ) was based on hi s membershi p i n t he PDP, hi s suppor t f or

PDP candi dat es, hi s advocacy of pr o- PDP pol i ci es, or any ot her

pr ot ect ed act i vi t y. ") . Mor e i mpor t ant l y f or t he i nst ant appeal ,

r et al i at i on f or r el at i onshi ps ot her t han t hose whi ch ar e pol i t i cal

i n nat ure may be "undeserved" puni shment , but are nonethel ess not

pr otected by t he Fi r st Amendment . I d. ( "Thi s may be an undeser ved

penal t y, but di scr i mi nat i on based on non- pol i t i cal associ at i on does

not i mpl i cat e t he Fi r st Amendment . " ) .

I n Cor r ea- Mar t nez v. Ar r i l l aga- Bel ndez, we af f i r med t he

di smi ssal of a Fi r st Amendment cl ai m br ought by a government

empl oyee al l egi ng t hat hi s f or ced r esi gnat i on was t he r esul t of hi s

cl ose r el at i onshi p wi t h another empl oyee wi t h whom t he def endant s

had per sonal and pol i t i cal di f f er ences. 903 F. 2d 49, 57- 59 ( 1st

-22-


23/27

Ci r . 1990) ( over r ul ed on ot her gr ounds by Educadores

Puer t orr i queos en Acci n v. Her nndez, 367 F. 3d 61, 68 ( 1st Ci r .

2004) ) . Ther e, we r easoned t hat t he pl ai nt i f f ' s al l egat i ons i n

t hat case di d not expl ai n how t he def endant s di scr i mi nat ed agai nst

hi m based on hi s pol i t i cal bel i ef s or advocacy of i deas r egar di ng

mat t er s of publ i c i nt er est . I d. at 57. We f ur t her r easoned, "he

asser t s onl y that def endant s had ' per sonal and pol i t i cal

di f f er ences' wi t h an unr el at ed i ndi vi dual [ . . . ] and di scri mi nat ed

agai nst hi m ( pl ai nt i f f ) because of hi s ' cl ose associ at i on' wi t h

[ sai d i ndi vi dual ] . " I d. Such per sonal r el at i onshi ps wi t h someone

wi t h whom def endant s have pol i t i cal di f f er ences do not r i se t o t he

l evel of pr ot ect ed act i vi t y guar ant eed by t he Const i t ut i on. See

i d. ( "[ I ] n const i t ut i onal t er ms, f r eedom of associ at i on i s not t o

be def i ned unr eser vedl y. Ent r y i nt o t he const i t ut i onal or bi t

r equi r es mor e t han a mer e r el at i onshi p. ") . That i s, "t he Fi r st

Amendment does not pr otect agai nst al l depr i vat i ons ar i si ng out of

an act of associ at i on unl ess t he act i t sel f - say, j oi ni ng a

chur ch or pol i t i cal par t y, speaki ng out on mat t er s of publ i c

i nt er est , advocacy of r ef or m - f al l s wi t hi n t he scope of

[ pr ot ected] act i vi t i es. " I d. Ther ef or e, when a const i t ut i onal

cl ai m r est s upon t he pol i t i cal bel i ef s of t hi r d par t i es bei ng t he

cause of t he adver se act i on wi t hout mor e, a pl ai nt i f f f ai l s t o

est abl i sh t hat i t s pr ot ected act i vi t y i s t he mot i vat i ng f actor

behi nd def endant ' s act i ons.

-23-


24/27

Here, Rosaur a acknowl edged t hat t her e woul d be mater i al

f act s i n cont r over sy r equi r i ng r ever si ng t he di smi ssal gr ant ed by

t he di st r i ct cour t , onl y i f we deci de t hat i t had a val i d cause of

act i on f or r et al i at i on under Umbehr . Yet , Rosaur a f ai l ed t o ar gue

what pr ot ect ed conduct , i f any, i t engaged i n t hat was a mot i vat i ng

f actor i n t he Mayor ' s r et al i at i on. Rosaur a al so f ai l ed t o al l ege

t hat i t s associ at i on t o t he r el at i ves of one of i t s shar ehol der s

was pol i t i cal i n nat ur e, or r el at ed t o ot her mat t er s of publ i c

concer n.

We not e t hat her e t her e i s a par t i cul ar l y at t enuat ed

r el at i onshi p bet ween Rosaur a and t he par t i es exer ci si ng Fi r st

Amendment r i ght s ( Rosaur a al l eged t hat i t was deni ed a cont r act

because i t s shar ehol der s ar e r el at ed t o par t i es exer ci si ng Fi r st

Amendment r i ght s) , and t her e i s no al l egat i on t hat t he deni al of

t he cont r act t o Rosaur a was desi gned t o or woul d have any mater i al

ef f ect on the exer ci se of Fi r st Amendment r i ght s by t he rel at i ves

of shar ehol der s. For t hose r easons, Rosaur a f ai l ed t o est abl i sh a

col or abl e cl ai m f or Fi r st Amendment r et al i at i on.

C. The Equal Protection Claim

Rosaur a cl ai ms, i n t he al t er nat i ve, t hat t he l ease

cont r act was ul t i mat el y gr ant ed t o a pol i t i cal suppor t er of t he

Mayor , wi t hout submi ssi on f or hi s wr i t t en appr oval , as t he Mayor

r equi r ed of Rosaur a' s cont r act at t he el event h hour . Thus, i t

cl ai ms t hat t hi s acti on vi ol at ed i t s equal pr ot ecti on r i ght s. I n

-24-


25/27

support of t he pur port ed unequal t r eat ment , Rosaur a si mpl y

cont ends, wi t hout det ai l s, t hat t he f avor ed cont r act or ' s pr oper t y

was subst andard and di d not meet Head St ar t r equi r ement s. Rosaur a

poi nt s us wi t hout much gui dance to Cl ar k v. Boscher , whi ch hel d

t hat "[ a] pl ausi bl e equal pr ot ect i on vi ol at i on i s est abl i shed when

a pl ai nt i f f shows by hi s or her wel l - pl eaded f act s t hat she was

t r eat ed di f f er ent l y f r om' ot her s si mi l ar l y si t uat ed . . . based on

i mper mi ssi bl e consi der at i ons such as r ace, r el i gi on, i nt ent t o

i nhi bi t or puni sh t he exer ci se of const i t ut i onal r i ght s, or

mal i ci ous or bad f ai t h i nt ent t o i nj ur e a per son. ' " 514 F. 3d 107,

114 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . Even assumi ng t hat t hese al l egat i ons ar e

suf f i ci ent , whi ch we do not si nce we have hel d t hat Rosaur a f ai l ed

t o establ i sh t hat i t exer ci sed const i t ut i onal r i ght s, t hi s al so i s

wr ong on t he mer i t s.

As st at ed bef or e, an equal pr ot ect i on cl ai m r equi r es

"pr oof t hat ( 1) t he per son, compar ed wi t h ot her s si mi l ar l y

si t uat ed, was sel ect i vel y t r eat ed; and ( 2) t hat such sel ect i ve

t r eat ment was based on i mpermi ssi bl e consi derat i ons such as race,

r el i gi on, i nt ent t o i nhi bi t or puni sh t he exer ci se of

const i t ut i onal r i ght s, or mal i ci ous or bad f ai t h i nt ent t o i nj ur e

a person. " Fr eeman v. Town of Hudson, 714 F. 3d 29, 38 ( 1st Ci r .

2013) . Rosaur a has f ai l ed t o show any of t hese i mper mi ssi bl e

consi der at i ons.

-25-


26/27

Def endant s cor r ect l y repl y t hat Rosaur a' s equal

pr ot ect i on cl ai m f ai l s because i t i s a mer e r est at ement of i t s

Fi r st Amendment cl ai m and based on t he same f act s. See Uphof f

Fi guer oa v. Al ej andr o, 597 F. 3d 423, 426 ( 1st Ci r . 2010)

( "Pol i t i cal di scr i mi nat i on and r et al i at i on cl ai ms under t he Fi r st

Amendment cannot be r est ated as cl ai ms under t he Equal Prot ect i on

Cl ause") ; Pr i sma Zona Expl or at or i a, 310 F. 3d at 8 ( "To the extent

t hat t hi s cl ai m pr et ends t o be anythi ng more t han a r est at ement of

t he f ai l ed Fi r st Amendment cl ai m, i t t oo i s undevel oped and

abandoned. " ) .

Rosaur a has al so f ai l ed t o make an argument as t o how i t

was si mi l ar l y si t uat ed t o t he f avor ed cont r act or . I t si mpl y st at es

wi t hout expl anat i on t hat t hi s compet i t or was awar ded t he cont r act

based on pol i t i cal f avor i t i sm, even t hough i t s f aci l i t i es wer e

al l egedl y not as sui t abl e f or t he muni ci pal gover nment ' s use.

Rosaur a poi nt s t o nothi ng i n t he summary- j udgment r ecor d t hat mi ght

shed l i ght on t he "si mi l ar l y si t uat ed" pr ong of t he equal

pr ot ect i on anal ysi s, or t hat i t bel ongs t o a pr ot ect ed cat egor y.

Accor di ngl y, Rosaur a' s equal pr ot ect i on cl ai m al so f ai l s.

III. Conclusion

For t he r easons f or egoi ng we hol d t hat Rosaur a f ai l ed t o

st at e a Fi r st Amendment r et al i at i on cause of act i on, and f ai l ed t o

st at e an equal pr otect i on cl ai m. Ther ef ore, we need not addr ess at

-26-


27/27

t hi s t i me whet her Umbehr pr ot ect i ons ext end t o f i r st t i me

gover nment cont r act or s. The di st r i ct cour t ' s j udgment i s af f i r med.

AFFIRMED.

-27-

Rosaura Building Corp. v. Municipality of Mayaguez, 1st Cir. (2015)

Documents