Opinion
Civil No. 02-2661 (JAG).
June 21, 2004
OPINION AND ORDER
On March 4, 2003, plaintiff Matosantos Commercial Corporation ("MCC") filed an Amended Complaint asserting two causes of action: (1) for breach of a distributorship agreement pursuant to Puerto Rico Dealer's Act, P.R. Laws Ann. Tit. 10 §§ 278(e) ("Law 75"), and (2) for damages arising from a cause of action for breach of contract under Articles 1054 and 1059 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, P.R. Laws Ann. Tit 31 §§ 3018 and 3023 against defendant SCA Tissue NA, LLC ("SCA") (Docket No. 8). On May 19, 2003, SCA moved to dismiss the second cause of action alleging that it is not legally separate from the first cause of action (Docket No. 17). On June 24, 2003, MCC opposed the motion to dismiss (Docket No. 21). On July 23, 2003, SCA replied (Docket No. 27).
On July 21, 2003, SCA filed a counterclaim for Declaratory Relief, seeking judicial declarations disavowing various exclusivity rights claimed by MCC (Docket No. 26). On September 2, 2003, MCC moved to dismiss the counterclaim, alleging that it is redundant and would serve no useful purpose (Docket No. 45). On September 29, 2003, opposed the dismissal of the counterclaim (Docket No. 51).
On April 2, 2004, the Court referred these matters to U.S. Magistrate-Judge Camille Velez-Rive for a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 61). On May 6, 2004, the Magistrate-Judge recommended that the Court deny the Motion to Dismiss the Second Cause of Action and grant the Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim for Declaratory Relief (Docket No. 63). On May 24, 2004, SCA filed an objection to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation. (Docket No. 28).
The Magistrate-Judge also recommended that this Court decline the Plaintiff's request for certification of the following matter to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, to wit: "Do the provisions of Law 75 prevent a distributor who is asserting a cause of action under that statute from presenting as well a cause of action for breach of contract under Articles 1054 and 1059 of the Civil Code?" (Docket No. 42). Due to the Plaintiff's request for the Court to adopt the Magistrate-Judge's recommendations in full, this Court declines to further address the certification issue. (Docket No. 77).
For the reasons discussed below, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate-Judge's Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The relevant facts are taken from the Amended Complaint (Docket No. 8)
In 1975, Georgia-Pacific Corporation ("GPC") induced MCC to purchase the only other distributor of GPC's non-residential tissue products (the "Product") in Puerto Rico. Thus, MCC became GPC's sole and exclusive distributor in Puerto Rico. In its capacity as the exclusive distributor, MCC created a favorable market for GPC products in Puerto Rico through marketing and promotional endeavors. In 1994, GPC established a price zone and implemented an allowance program to protect MCC's exclusivity.
On October 4, 1999, GPC merged with Chesapeake Corporation to form defendant Georgia Pacific Tissue, a.k.a. SCA Tissue (SCA), assigning thereto all rights and responsibilities of its tissue products business, including all obligations owed to MCC. Shortly thereafter, SCA began selling the Product to MCC's customers and to MCC's direct competitor, Melissa Sales Corporation.
DISCUSSION
A. Standard for Reviewing a Magistrate-Judge's Report and Recommendation
A District Court may, on its own motion, refer a pending motion to a U.S. Magistrate-Judge for a Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Local Rule 72(a). Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) and Local Rule 72(d), the adversely affected party may contest the Magistrate-Judge's Report and Recommendation by filing written objections "[w]ithin ten days of being served" with a copy of the order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If the affected party files timely objections to the Magistrate-Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which specific objection is made. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980); Lopez v. Chater, 8 F. Supp.2d 152, 154 (D.P.R. 1998).
B. SCA's Objections to the Report and Recommendation
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) allows a party to file specific, written objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations. Similarly, Local Rule 72(d) states that "the written objection . . . shall specifically identify the portion of the proposed . . . recommendation or report to which an objection is made and the basis for such objections." The objections entered, however, are not to be regarded as a second opportunity to present the arguments already considered by the Magistrate-Judge. In Sackell v. Heckler, 104 F.R.D. 401 (D.R.I. 1984), the Court established that,
[i]f the magistrate system is to be effective, and if profligate wasting of judicial resources is to be avoided, the district court should be spared the chore of traversing ground already plowed by the magistrate except in those areas where counsel, consistent with the [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure], can in good conscience complain to the district judge that an objection to a particular finding or recommendation is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law.Id. at 402-403.
On May 24, 2004, SCA entered a protracted objection to the Magistrate-Judge's Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 68). Although SCA specifies the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which it objects, the Court finds that the Defendant's objections merely echo its Motion to Dismiss Second Cause of Action, its Reply to the Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the Second Cause of Action and its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim (Docket Nos. 17, 27 and 51). SCA's objections exhibit a lack of understanding that this Court will not seriously consider a filing in which a party simply reiterates the arguments that the Magistrate-Judge previously considered and rejected.
In its objections regarding MCC's second cause of action, the Defendant contends that Law 75 preempts the Civil Code-based claim and that the Civil Code supplements the Law 75 damage provisions without yielding an independent claim. SCA also argues that the Puerto Rico Supreme Court established that special laws preempt general laws. Similarly, SCA restates that the allegations in the Counterclaim for Declaratory Relief do not duplicate the allegations in the Amended Complaint. The Court notes that Magistrate-Judge considered these arguments in forming her recommendations. SCA provides no specific or novel analysis to counter the Magistrate-Judge's legal conclusions, but rather restates the arguments presented to the Magistrate-Judge.
The Defendant has, therefore, failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) and Local Rule 72(d). Thus, this Court will not consider the Defendant's objections and will not review de novo the Report and Recommendation. Castro-Rivera v. Citibank, 195 F. Supp.2d 363, 365 (D.P.R. 2002) (finding that the Court need not seriously consider an objecting party's filing where it simply restates the arguments that the Magistrate-Judge previously considered).
This Court's review of the record finds no clear error of law or fact in Magistrate-Judge Velez-Rive's Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate-Judge Velez-Rive's Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Second Cause of Action and GRANTS the plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.