B & B Target Center, Inc. v. Figueroa-Sancha
3:11-cv-01901
D.P.R.Jul 3, 2012Background
- Plaintiffs B&B Target Center, Bermudez-Gonzalez, and Latorre allege violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against PRPD officials and Treasury/IRS officials.
- Plaintiffs claim Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, supervisory/direct liability, and failure to remediate, seeking damages and injunctive relief.
- In 2009, B&B’s firearms license was revoked after missing firearms were found in an inventory; defendants allegedly sanctioned the revocation despite inspections showing compliance.
- PRPD's September 17, 2009 license revocation letter was delivered without a detailed factual basis, and plaintiffs were denied access to supporting files.
- From Sept. 2009 to Dec. 2010, B&B’s license remained revoked and firearms were seized, causing economic and reputational harm.
- Administrative hearing ultimately found in plaintiffs’ favor in 2010, but license reinstatement occurred only in December 2010.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Fourth Amendment claim survives dismissal | B&B alleges unreasonable warrantless search/seizure in a regulated firearms business. | Warrantless inspections/seizures were permissible given industry regulation and license revocation. | Granted; Fourth Amendment claim dismissed with prejudice. |
| Whether plaintiffs had a protected property interest and adequate due process | License constitutes property; due process violated by pre- and post-deprivation process failures. | Premised on regulatory framework; may justify limited process. | Denied in part; plaintiffs pled a protected property interest and plausible due process violations, so claim survives. |
| Whether the pre-revocation hearing requirement applied | Pre-revocation hearing was required before license revocation. | Industry regulation permits prompt action without pre-deprivation hearing. | Denied; no pre-revocation hearing required due to regulatory urgency and per Biswell. |
| Whether the post-deprivation hearing delay violated due process | Six-month gap to post-deprivation hearing was unreasonable and violated Mathews factors. | Delay may be warranted by government interests in regulation. | Denied; delay plausibly violates due process; claim survives for now. |
| Eleventh Amendment limits on damages and availability of injunctive relief | States may be liable for damages and injunctive relief against officials under § 1983. | Eleventh Amendment bars damages against PR officials in official capacity; injunctive relief allowed against state actors. | Damages barred in official capacity; injunctive relief potentially available; plaintiffs may amend to substitute successors. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311 (1972) (pervasively regulated industry permits warrantless seizures under reasonable standards)
- New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987) (reduced expectation of privacy in regulated businesses; inspections permissible)
- Spinelli v. City of New York, 579 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2009) (delay in post-suspension hearing can violate due process)
- Gonzalez-Droz v. Gonzalez-Colon, 660 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (license as a property interest and due process considerations in Puerto Rico)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective reasonableness standard in Fourth Amendment analyses)
- Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971) (license continuity can be a protected property interest)
- Mathews v. Elridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (Mathews balancing test for due process)