Email Melinda Romero Demanda

1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
PAN-AMERICAN TELEPHONE CO. INC.,
AND BRIAN HEALY, individually;
JOSEPH RAYMOND MOLINA YOUNG,
AND LUIS BURGOS, AND RICARDO
ROSADO
VS
THE MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JUAN, AND
JORGE SANTINI, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS MAYOR and Individually
PHONEWORKS, INC., and
RONALD E. MASSIE
Does C-Z
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
(
(
)
)
)
)
)
)/
Case No.: 09-cv-1256 ADC/BMC
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
SEEKING DAMAGES
EQUITABLE AND IN1UNTIVE
RELIEF
Demand for jury trial
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND IN1UNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiffs sues defendants in chancery of this court. In support the plaintiIIs state|s| and pray|s|
as Iollows:
GENERAL ALEGATIONS
1. PlaintiII Pan-American Telephone, Inc |hereinaIter, Pan-American| is a corporation
organized under the laws oI Puerto Rico, and is in the business oI installing, operating,
and maintaining public telephones.
Case 3:09-cv-01256-ADC -BJM Document 156-1 Filed 03/31/11 Page 1 of 19
Case 3:09-cv-01256-ADC-BJM Document 179 Filed 07/06/11 Page 1 of 19
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. PlaintiII Pan-American participated in the bid Subasta no. 2003/110 and was the most
responsive bidder. The exclusive right oI sue was awarded to the company headed by
Andres Romero |TeleIonos Publicos De PR and Phoneworks, Inc.| denied Pan-American
Telephone its rights as a Telecommunication service provider in violation oI 47 U.S.C.
253. The same contract was preempted by Iederal law and was similarly awarded in a
discriminatory manner based on political alliance, Ialsehood, and discriminatory and
unIair and unreasonable rates.
3. PlaintiII Brian Healy is an Anglo-Saxon American citizen who operates Pan-American
Telephone, in San Juan Puerto Rico. PlaintiII Brian Healy alleges inter alia- that
deIendants Municipality oI San Juan, and DeIendant Jorge Santini discriminated against
his company and business he interest in part to aid his political allied Carlos Romero
Barcelo, his son Andres Romero and through a pattern oI Ior those claiming injury under
claims oI allegedly discriminatory or allegedly unIair and unreasonable rates.
4. TeleIonos Publicos de Puerto Rico (TPRR) was a company controlled by Carlos Romero
Barcelo, his son Andres Romero that merged in to deIendant Phoneworks, Inc.
|Phoneworks| as a company control by Carlos Romero Barcelo, Andres Romero (his
son) and Ronal E. Massie a convicted drug traIIicker Ielon (Case 94-cr-81254-HWG-1
U.S. District Court Eastern District oI Michigan (Detroit). He has also pleaded guilty to
Irauds and swindles under case 00-cr-00440-TCP-1 U.S. District Court Eastern District
oI New York, sentence is waiting at the Iiling oI the complaint. In another case, the
Honorable U.S. District Judge Louis L. Stanton -U.S. District Court Ior the Southern
District oI New York- described Ronald E. Massie as an associate of the Bonanno
crime family, which has a flagrant criminal record oI using its maIia connections and
defrauding its customers
1
. TPRR and Phoneworks maintain a monopoly over
approximately 68 municipalities in Puerto Rico. On best inIormation and belieI all Iacts
1
Judge Stantons comments were made in his opinion dismissing Globals lawsuit against the city of New York and
its department oI transportation (doIII) WL1384058 (S.D.N.Y JUNE 10, 2005) CASE NO. 03-7934
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
schemes and overcharging oI consumers is relevant to all 68 to municipalities and public
telephone services which Phoneworks operates in Puerto Rico.
5. Under the present statutory scheme, DeIendant Ronald E. Massie a convicted Ielon is
unable to operate and participate in Iederal communication and is barred by Iederal and
state law to have a participation in Iederal and state communications. At all times related
hereto Ronald Massie has admitted in depositions to be Iriend with Carlos Romero
Barcelo, Andres Romero, that are political associates oI deIendant Jorge Santini.
6. TPPR, Phoneworks and or their agents, have Iiled tariII statements in compliance with
the State Telecommunication Board attesting that services under the public phone
service, the tariII charged would be $0.34 per operator assisted call |local calls|, under
the Iranchise contract with the Municipality oI San Juan the agreement has been to charge
$4.00 per operator assisted connection. No such tariII has been Iiled or approved by any
state regulatory agency. The deIendants have been indeed charging the consumer
extraordinary sums in excess oI the stipulated Iranchise contract. Similarly, deIendants
have not disclosed the excessive charges to prospective consumers who may use the
public telephone. DeIendants gained access to the public telephone Iranchise by way oI
political inIluence and Melinda Romeros public policy consulting contracts with the
Municipality as legal and administrative consultant on behalI oI deIendant Jorge Santini.
7. The Municipality oI San Juan awarded the Iranchise to the company controlled by Carlos
Romero Barcelo, his son Andres Romero, convicted Ielon Roland E. Massie based on
Ialse promises that deIendant, TPRR and Phoneworks as successor in interest, would pay
sums oI monies, which they never intended to pay during the liIe oI the Iranchise, and
did not have a basis in Iact or business purpose, other than to support a Ialse basis to
award to Carlos Romero Barcelo, his son and their convicted Ielon business associates,
because oI his connections with the PNP party, close political associates who had hired
Ms. Melinda Romero as an administrative and legal consultant to deIendant Mayor Jorge
Santini Padilla. The exclusive Iranchise award to the company headed by Andres
Romero (TeleIonos Publicos de PR and Phoneworks, Inc) was an ultra-virus act oI the
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Municipality oI San Juan, and Jorge Santini, preempted by Iederal law particularly, 47
S.S.C. 253. The exclusive right oI use by deIendants Phoneworks, Inc. |2006-2010|
subsequent party in interest, was also an ultra-virus act preempted by 47 U.S.C. 253,
Puerto Rico law as an oral contract without valid state law.
8. DeIendant Jorge Santini is a strong mayor oI the Municipality oI San Juan employed his
position oI strong mayor to assist and help his Iriends and political associates, Andres
Romero, Carlos Romero Barcelo in obtaining an exclusive Iranchise agreement under the
Ialse pretense that the TeleIonos Publicos oI Puerto Rico and Phoneworks, Inc. would
pay the sums oI monies stated by the contracts and place the necessary bonds to protect
the interest oI the citizens oI San Juan and the general public at large. DeIendant Jorge
Santini is sued in his oIIicial capacity and individual capacity.
9. DeIendant Ronal E Massie is a director oI Phoneworks, Inc. who at all times material
hereto was a convicted Ielon and unable to have an interest in a Telecommunication
service business. Ronald E. Massie transIerred overcharges to Puerto Rican consumers to
oIIshore bank accounts as to avoid detection and outreach oI the United States Courts and
consumers in Puerto Rico.
10. The award to TeleIonos Publicos de PR oI the Municipal contract denied PlaintiII Pan-
American Telephone its rights under the telecommunication Act. 47 U.S.C. 253. Under
the instant Iederal regulatory statute no State or local statute or regulation, or other State
or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the eIIect oI prohibiting the ability oI any
entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service. The exclusive
award to TeleIonos Publicos de PR -even iI made in good Iaith- violated 47 U.S.C 253.
Where any ordinance |Municipal rule| that utilized auction process to designate single
company as provider oI payphones, in public rights oI way in large geographical area that
was capable oI accommodating at least 75 to 100 separate telephones and that was served
by multiple companies, reduced competition and constituted barrier to entry in violation
oI Telecommunications Act, even though town asserted that auction process was
competitive, ordinance also provided Ior placement oI pay telephones on private property
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
near to public rights oI way, and town rationally asserted that managing traIIic patterns
and crime required exclusive Iranchise. New Jersev Pavphone Assn, Inc. v. Town of West
New York, C.A.3 (N.J.) 2002, 299 F.3a 235.
11. On June 24-26 Carlos Romero Barcelo, Andres Romero, and Ronald E Massie reported
to be associates with an address 606 E. Magrill Street, Longview, TX 75601.
DeIendant Phoneworks Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws oI the State oI
Delaware; its principals are Andres Romero, Ronald E. Massie and Carlos Romero
Barcelo.
12. PlaintiII Joseph Raymond Molina is a citizen oI the municipality oI San Juan, who has
used the public phones operated by deIendants, and has been deIrauded in violation oI the
Clayton Act, and its sister Act the Sherman Act by -inter alia- being overcharged in a
systemic scheme to deIraud the consumer over and above those authorized by the Puerto
Rico Telecommunications Act, and the Iranchise contract rate oI $4.00 per operator
assisted calls. In Iact, the evidence demonstrates a pattern and scheme to deIraud the
consumer by charging $29.76 (a sum equal to $29.42 over the authorized tariII rate, and
over $21.76 over the Iranchise rate). PlaintiII Joseph Raymond Molina has been injured
in business or propertv interest and pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 15 the Clayton Act brings
this action in his name and Ior all those persons, consumers that have been injured by
deIendants monopolization oI the public telephone system in the municipality oI San
Juan, Puerto Rico.
13. PlaintiII Molina bring this cause oI action in his name and as class representative oI the
consumers who have been injured by the acts oI the deIendants and violations oI the
Clayton Act 15 U.S.C. 15 et seq. As against Jorge Santini, Ior his ultra-virus acts,
Iailure to protect PlaintiII|s| under the constitution and laws oI the United States, and the
Municipality oI San Juan, Ior an ultra-virus acts where no saIe harbor provision applies
to ultra-virus acts.
14. PlaintiII PAN-AMERICAN TELEPHONE CO. INC., is corporation organized under the
laws oI Puerto Rico, and has been injured in business and property by the deIendants
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
conspiracy and blatant violation oI the Clayton Act 15 U.S.C. 15 et seq. Section 4 and
16 provide Ior "|a|ny person, Iirm, corporation, or association shall be entitled to sue Ior
and have injunctive relieI. . . against threatened loss or damage by a violation oI the
antitrust laws. . . when and under the same conditions and principles as injunctive relieI
against threatened conduct that will cause loss or damage is granted by courts oI equity. "
15 U.S.C. 26. Similarly, Pan-American Telephone has been injured by violation oI 47
U.S.C. 253, that provides Ior a private right oI action Ior the discriminatory practices oI
the deIendants Municipality oI San Juan and Jorge Santini.
15. PlaintiII Luis Burgos and Ricardo Rosado are former TPPR and Phoneworks, Inc.
employees who have been injured in business and property by the deIendants conspiracy
and blatant violation oI the Clayton Act 15 U.S.C. 15 et seq. On February 2007
deIendants principals, Andres Romero and Ronal E. Massie, required that the plaintiII
attend a meeting where convicted Ielon Ronal E. Massie instructed and taught plaintiIIs
the alteration and rigging oI the public telephones, so as to prevent the return oI coin
change to the consumer. PlaintiIIs Burgos and Rosado were at all time route employees
oI Phoneworks, who reIuse to alter and rig the public telephone so as to not return change
or coins to consumers using the public telephone. When plaintiIIs reIused to open the
hopper they were Iired by Andres Romero and Ronal E. Massie. shows certain route
summary report where it is indicated which public telephones are maintained with an
open hopper. PlaintiII Luis Burgos and Ricardo Rosado submit that at least in 2007, when
they were responsible Ior the telephone route, the collections oI daily coins throughout
Puerto Rico amounted to $20,000.00 to $ 25,000.00 daily in cash receipts.
16. Section 4 oI the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15, which would provide the consumer class
with its damage remedy, reads: Any person who shall be injured in his business or
property by reason oI anything Iorbidden in the antitrust laws may sue thereIor in any
district court oI the United States in the district in which the deIendant resides or is Iound
or has an agent without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threeIold
the damages by him sustained, and the cost oI suit, including a reasonable attorney's Iee.
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17. Section 4 oI the Clayton Act states that "any person who shall be injured in his business
or property by reason oI anything Iorbidden in the antitrust laws may sue thereIor in any
district court oI the United States . . . |and| shall recover threeIold the damages by him
sustained, and the cost oI suit, including a reasonable attorney's Iee," 15 U.S.C. 15,
while Section 16 states that "|a|ny person, Iirm, corporation, or association shall be
entitled to sue Ior and have injunctive relieI. . . against threatened loss or damage by a
violation oI the antitrust laws. . . when and under the same conditions and principles as
injunctive relieI against threatened conduct that will cause loss or damage is granted by
courts oI equity. . . ." 15 U.S.C. 26. By its express terms, Section 4 contemplates a
monetary award to plaintiIIs who have already sustained actual damages, while Section
16 permits a plaintiII to obtain an injunction prior to sustaining actual injury by
demonstrating that the deIendant's anticipated violation oI the antitrust laws threatens to
cause injury to the plaintiII iI consummated. This Ieature oI Section 16, permitting
equitable relieI prior to the occurrence oI actual injury, was expressly noted in the
legislative history oI Section 16 as an intended beneIit oI the legislation.
18. DeIendant Municipality oI San Juan, a municipal corporation organized under the laws oI
Puerto Rico, provided a Iranchise Ior public telephone service in the municipality in
violation oI the Clayton Act 15 U.S.C. 15 et seq., and the Sherman Act 15 U.S.C.S.
1. Section 1 oI the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.S. 1, which makes unlawIul every contract,
combination or conspiracy, in restraint oI trade or commerce among the several states.
And 2, 15 U.S.C.S. 2, makes it unlawIul to monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or
combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part oI the
trade or commerce among the several states including Puerto Rico as a territory oI the
United States. Similarly, by monopolizing the public telephone service in the
Municipality oI San Juan, deIendant Municipality and Jorge Santini were preempted by
Iederal law Irom denying access to PlaintiII Pan-American Telephone. The award to
TeleIonos Publicos De PR and Phoneworks, Inc. was an ultra virus act oI the deIendant
Municipality and Jorge Santini, and cannot hide under any saIe harbor provisions.
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19. DeIendant Jorge Santini is the Mayor responsible Ior the operations and administrative
Iunction oI the city. DeIendant is a close political associate oI Carlos Romero Barcelo
|Iormer Mayor oI San Juan, Iormer resident commissioner, and Iormer governor oI
Puerto Rico| and his associates. Melinda Romero is an administrative consultant to the
Mayor and is the daughter oI Carlos Romero Barcelo, sister oI Andre Romero. Through
approval oI the municipality, the deIendant Mayor, in an eIIort to assist his longtime
political allies, has violated the Clayton Act 15 U.S.C. 15 et seq., the Sherman Act 15
U.S.C.S. 1 by providing a Iranchise Ior public phone service in the municipality oI San
Juan. The approval, while apparent award, was not an award itselI but a pattern and
scheme to violate the Clayton Act by providing close political associates with a
monopoly oI the phone service in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
20. DeIendant Does B-Z are Iictitious parties who may have collected sums in excess oI the
tariII rates and contract rates.
1URISDICTION AND VENUE
21. The court has original jurisdiction based on Federal question 28 U.S.C. 1331; The
Clayton Act as codiIied 15 U.S.C. 15, The Sherman Act 15 U.S.C.S. 1, and The
Federal Telecommunications Act oI 1996 ("TCA"), 47 U.S.C. 253. The court Iurther
has supplemental jurisdiction oI the single state claim arising out oI the nucleus oI
operative Iacts und 28 U.S.C. 1367.
22. Venue lies in this district, as the Iacts and occurrences took place in the District oI Puerto
Rico; All acts events occurred in the Commonwealth oI Puerto Rico.
I Numerosity and Definition of the Class
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
23. PlaintiII Joseph Raymond Molina brings this class action in behalI oI himselI and the
Iollowing classes:
2
All parties who have used the public telephone service within the Municipality oI San
Juan. The Class consists oI 100,000 persons who may have made over 584,000 calls using
the operator assistant calls, the exact number being unknown and unascertainable;
thereIore, the Class is so numerous that joinder oI all members is impracticable.
II. Commonality
24. This cause oI action is predicated on violations oI Clayton Act, The Sherman Act. At all
times material hereto the plaintiII petitioners allege and reaIIirm that they are members oI
a class oI persons that have been subject to violations oI the Clayton Act and have been
injured in business and property as a result of defendants monopolization of the public
telephone service in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
III. Typicality
25. The claims oI the PlaintiIIs are typical oI the claims oI the Class members they represent
as they seek essentially the same relieI, namely damages in business and property
resulting Iorm the defendants monopolization oI the public telephone service in San
Juan, Puerto Rico.
IV. Adequacy of Representation
26. PlaintiII Joseph Raymond Molina is a plaintiII representative oI citizen and consumers
that have been injured in business and property as a result oI the violation oI the Clayton
Act, the Sherman Act and monopolization oI the public telephone service in San Juan,
Puerto Rico.
2
The class deIinition may be modiIied by the Court based on discovery or other Iactors that can surIace throughout
the course oI the litigation.
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
V. Plaintiffs Meet the Requirements of Rule 23(b)(1)(A)
27. This action is maintainable under Rule 23(b)(1)(A), Fed.R.Civ.P., because the
prosecution oI separate actions by individual members oI the Class would create a risk oI
inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members oI the Class
which would establish incompatible standards oI conduct Ior DeIendants.
VI. Plaintiffs Meet the Requirements of Rule 23(b)(3)
28. CertiIication is also appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., because:
A. Common issues predominate where the exact same issues will apply
uniIormly to each class member seeking injunctive relieI; and
B. A class action is superior because individual class members have no
practical interest or ability to bring this action Ior damages.
In particular, there are numerous questions oI law and/or Iact that are common to
the claims oI the PlaintiIIs and the members oI the Class. Among these common
questions oI law and/or Iact are the Iollowing:
A. whether the class members have no adequate remedy at law;
B. whether class members are subject to injury in business and property, i.e.,
whether said relationship the deIendants monopolization oI the public
telephone service in the Municipality oI San Juan Puerto Rico has caused
them overcharge over the stipulated amount oI $3.37 dollars Ior operator
assisted calls within Puerto Rico and Ior overcharge over the $4.00 Ior
operator assisted call outside oI Puerto Rico.
C. whether injunctive relieI is appropriate and in the public interest;
D. whether equity supports the relieI requested in the instant issues.
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The class action is the superior method oI adjudication oI this controversy as joinder is
impracticable and the case is manageable and can be tried with class wide prooI Ior all
members oI the Class.
CertiIication is also appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., because:
C. Common issues predominate where the exact same issues will apply
uniIormly to each class member seeking injunctive relieI; and
D. A class action is superior because individual class members have no
practical interest or ability to bring this action Ior damages.
The class action is the superior method oI adjudication oI this controversy
COUNT I
CLAYTON ACT VIOLATION
29. PlaintiIIs aver and reavers all preceding paragraphs and Iurther state and pray as Iollows:
30. Section 4 oI the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15, which would provide the consumer class
with its damage remedy, reads: Any person who shall be injured in his business or
property by reason oI anything Iorbidden in the antitrust laws may sue thereIor in any
district court oI the United States in the district in which the deIendant resides or is Iound
or has an agent without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threeIold
the damages by him sustained, and the cost oI suit, including a reasonable attorney's Iee.
31. PlaintiII Pan-American has suIIered damages in business and property by the actions and
conspiracy oI deIendants in monopolizing the public telephone service in San Juan Puerto
Rico. Accordingly plaintiII seeks redress oI the damages in accordance with the Clayton
Act remedies.
32. PlaintiII Pan-American has been injured in business and property because oI deIendants
monopolization and anti-trust violations of the public telephone service system in San
Juan Puerto Rico. "any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
oI anything Iorbidden in the antitrust laws may sue thereIor in any district court oI the
United States . . . |and| shall recover threeIold the damages by him sustained, and the cost
oI suit, including a reasonable attorney's Iee," 15 U.S.C. 15. Section 16 oI the Act
states that "|a|ny person, Iirm, corporation, or association shall be entitled to sue Ior and
have injunctive relieI. . . against threatened loss or damage by a violation oI the antitrust
laws. . . when and under the same conditions and principles as injunctive relieI against
threatened conduct that will cause loss or damage is granted by courts oI equity. . . ." 15
U.S.C. 26. By its express terms, Section 4 contemplates a monetary award to plaintiIIs
who have already sustained actual damages, while Section 16 permits a plaintiII to obtain
an injunction prior to sustaining actual injury by demonstrating that the deIendant's
anticipated violation oI the antitrust laws threatens to cause injury to the plaintiII iI
consummated
33. PlaintiII Joseph Raymond Molina individually and as member oI a class oI consumers
that have suIIered injury in business and property brings the cause oI action in his name
and that oI those members oI the class oI persons who have utilized the public telephone
system within the Municipality oI San Juan and who been overcharged unconscionable
amounts oI money over the stated tariII and over the stated Iranchise amount.
COUNT II
VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 1983
34. PlaintiIIs aver and reavers all preceding paragraphs and Iurther state and pray as Iollows:
35. This action is against Jorge Santini in his individual capacity, and as Mayor and ChieI
Executive oI the Municipality oI San Juan Puerto Rico.
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
36. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, every person who, under color oI any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, oI any State or Territory or the District oI Columbia,
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen oI the United States or other person within
the jurisdiction thereoI to the deprivation oI any rights, privileges, or immunities secured
by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in
equity, or other proper proceeding Ior redress. Here, deIendant has Iailed to protect
plaintiII under the Clayton Act, Sherman Act and has Iailed to protect plaintiII and class
members under the Equal Protection Clause oI the Federal Constitution to wit the 14
th
Amendment. The overcharges in public telephone service are tantamount to taking oI
business and property without due process oI law.
37. PlaintiII Brian healy brings this action against DIendnat Jorge Santini, individually and as
mayor oI Municipality oI San Juan Ior Iailure to protect his rights under the Clayton Act,
and the Telecommunication Act, The Equal Protection Clause oI the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S Constitution Ior its selection oI politically Iavored enterprise over
a neutral enterprise.
38. PlaintiII Joseph Raymond Molina brings this cause oI action against Jorge Santini in his
oIIicial personal capacity resulting Irom the Iailure oI the Mayor to protect plaintiII under
the laws oI the United States, primarily the anti-trust laws under the Clayton Act and
Sherman Act, the Telecommunication Act, The Equal Protection Clause oI the
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S Constitution as stated herein.
COUNT III
PUERTO RICO CIVIL CODE ACTION UNDER
31 L.P.R.A. 5141 Negligence
39. PlaintiIIs aver and reavers all preceding paragraphs and Iurther state:
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
40. Under 31 L.P.R.A. 5141 deIendants are responsible persons who by an act or omission
against plaintiII caused damage to plaintiIIs through Iault or negligence, and who
pursuant to P.R. Code 31 L.P.R.A. are obliged to repair the damage so done.
41. DeIendants have Municipality oI San Juan and deIendant Mayor has been negligent in
the administration and regulation oI the Iranchise agreement by inter alia permitting
deIendant (TPRR) Phoneworks, Inc. to overcharge the consumers and citizen oI San
Juan, Puerto Rico. And have Iailed to regulate, investigate, and monitor the activities and
violations oI Iederal and state consumer laws as against the citizen whom they are bound
to serve and provide Iundamental services and protections.
42. The Iailure oI the Municipality and Mayor to act reasonably to protect its citizens against
overcharging and predatory practices oI deIendants TeleIonos Pulicops de PR and
Phoneworks, Inc. and its principals have cause direct and proximate injury to plaintiIIs
individually, and similarly situated class claimants.
43. The court has jurisdiction to the claim under the supplemental powers oI the Court under
28 US.C.C. 1367. The claim is so Germaine to the Iederal claims that Iorm part oI the
same case and controversy, arising out oI the same issues oI operative Iacts Iorming the
same case and controversy upon which the court has original jurisdiction.
COUNT IV
VOLATION OF STATE TARIFF ACT
27 L.P.R.A. 269 et seq.
44. PlaintiIIs aver and reavers all preceding paragraphs and Iurther state and pray:
45. Under Puerto Rico telecommunications Act deIendant Phoneworks, Inc. is barred by
charging any sums over the stated tariII oI $3.75. Phonewaoks, Inc. has indeed charged
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
excessive amounts over the state tariII in violation oI the Puerto Rico telecommunications
Act and must return all sums oI monies charged over the stated tariII.
46. The court has jurisdiction to the claim under the supplemental powers oI the Court under
28 US.C.C. 1367. The claim is so Germaine to the Iederal claims that Iorm part oI the
same case and controversy, arising out oI the same issues oI operative Iacts Iorming the
same case and controversy upon which the court has original jurisdiction.
COUNT V
VIOLATION THE FEDERAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996
("TCA"), 47 U.S.C. 253(A)
47. PlaintiII avers and reavers all preceding paragraphs and Iurther states:
48. Congress passed the Federal Telecommunications Act (FTA) to promote competition
among and reduce regulation oI telecommunications providers. The Federal
Telecommunications Act oI 1996 ("TCA"), 47 U.S.C. 253(a) in sweeping terms Iorbids
any state or local statute, regulation or legal requirement that "may prohibit or have the
eIIect oI prohibiting the ability oI any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate
telecommunications service.
49. DeIendants Municipality oI San Juan and Jorge Santini denied Pan-American Telephone
its rights under the TCA by -inter alia- aIIording TeleIonos Publicos de PR the
exclusive right oI use when in Iact and in truth the award was Iraudulent and contrary to
47 U.S.C. 253.
50. DeIendants Municipality oI San Juan and Jorge Santini, individually denied Pan-
American Telephone its rights under the TCA by -inter alia- providing exclusive use oI
the Municipality Right oI way to TeleIonos Publicos de PR and Phoneworks, Inc. Irom
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2006 to 2010 in an illegal manner contrary to state law |See Municipio ae Quebraaillas
v. Corporacion ae Salua ae Lares, 2011 TSPR 27| and as against 47 U.S.C. 253 where
under the instant Iederal regulatory statute no State or local statute or regulation, or other
State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the eIIect oI prohibiting the ability
oI any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service. The
exclusive award to TeleIonos Publicos de PR -even iI made in good Iaith- violated 47
U.S.C 253. Where any ordinance |Municipal rule| that utilized auction process to
designate single company as provider oI payphones, in public rights oI way in large
geographical area that was capable oI accommodating at least 75 to 100 separate
telephones and that was served by multiple companies, reduced competition and
constituted barrier to entry in violation oI Telecommunications Act, even though town
asserted that auction process was competitive. No provision Ior saIe harbor apply to
deIendant Municipality oI San Juan and Jorge Santini who signed the award contract and
permitted the stay oI TeleIonos Publicos De PR and Phoneworks, Inc. in violation oI state
and Iederal law, Ior over six years.
51. Federal Telecommunications Act section barring state or local regulations that create
barriers to entry into telecommunications services market, but preserving state and local
authority to manage public rights-oI-way and require compensation Irom
telecommunications providers on nondiscriminatory basis, creates implied private right oI
action Ior those claiming injury under that section, including claims oI allegedly
discriminatory or allegedly unIair and unreasonable rates practices. TCG Detroit v. Citv
of Dearborn, C.A.6 (Mich.) 2000, 206 F.3a 618.
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
52. Congress impliedly created private right of action for commercial service providers
under subsection oI Telecommunications Act (TCA) that precluded state or local
governments Irom having eIIect oI prohibiting ability oI any entity to provide any
interstate or intrastate telecommunications service, since providers were among class Ior
whose especial beneIit subsection was enacted, legislative, allowing private action was
more consistent with underlying purpose oI legislative scheme.
WHEREFORE, the PlaintiIIs, on behalI oI themselves and the Class, demand the
Iollowing relieI:
A. Recover threeIold the damages sustained by the individual
plaintiIIs, and the cost oI suit, including a reasonable
attorney's Iee
B. AIter notice and hearing, an Order certiIying the Class and
any appropriate Subclasses to administer the claims.
C. An Order appointing Lorenzo Palomares P.S.C., as
Counsel Ior the Class and awarding attorneys Iees,
pursuant to Federal Law and the rules governing class
actions, Ior the beneIit oI the Class Ior said representation;
D. Establishing a Iund to provide relieI Ior the injury to the
class.
E. Negligence damages according to prooI under negligence
actions.
F. An Order enjoining and requiring the Agency and its
chieI/director to cease and desist Irom Iurther predatory
monopolization practices, and compliance with 47 U.S.C.
253.
G. Any and all Iurther relieI this Court deems just and proper.
H. A declaratory Judgment that the Municipality oI San Juan
violated the Anti-trust laws, the Clayton Act and the
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Federal Telecommunication Act by awarding the contracts
to TeleIonos Publicos de PR and Phoneworks Inc.
I. A money Judgment according to prooI against the
individual deIendants Ior violation oI the Clayton Act, and
Telecommunications Act.
J. A money judgment against Jorge Santini, according to
prooI, Ior Iailing to protect the individual PlaintiIIs under
the laws and Constitution oI the United States.
K. A trial by jury in all issues triable pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P
38(b).
RespectIully submitted,
Lorenzo J. Palomares, Esq.
U.S.D.C. #218017
Lorenzo Palomares, P.S.C.
Attorneys & Counselors at Law
421 Ave Munoz Rivera, Midtown Bld,
Penthouse Suite 1001,
San Juan, P.R. 00918
Tel (787) 753-7441
Fax (787) 622-2540
Palolawgmail.com
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE OF REPRESENTATION
We the undersigned de hereby appoint the Law oIIices oI Lorenzo Palomares P.S.C. and
Lorenzo J. Palomares-Starbuck, Esq. as representative in the instant complaint.
S./Joseph Ravmona Molina
Joseph Raymond Molina

Email Melinda Romero Demanda

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Email Melinda Romero Demanda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

You might also like