Jardin De Las Catalinas Ltd. Partnership v. Joyner
861 F. Supp. 2d 12
D.P.R.2012Background
- Catalinas and Santa María allege PRHFA seized LIHTCs offset from federal subsidies for their low-income housing.
- PRHFA moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing plaintiffs lack a property interest in LIHTCs and that claims are time-barred.
- Extensions were granted for responsive pleadings, but plaintiffs did not oppose the Rule 12(c) motion.
- Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion; plaintiffs challenged the R&R, which the district court adopted after considering objections.
- Court held plaintiffs have no cognizable property interest in LIHTC allocations under §42 of the IRC, and their §1983 claims are time-barred under Puerto Rico law; no equitable tolling applied.
- Judgment on the pleadings granted; case dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a cognizable property interest exist in LIHTCs under §42? | Catalinas/Santa Maria contend HERA increased credits create entitlement. | Joyner/PRHFA have absolute discretionary authority with no entitlement. | No cognizable property interest in LIHTCs. |
| Is the §1983 claim time-barred under Puerto Rico law? | Tort continuous, notice untimely, tolling may apply. | Filing occurred after one-year limitations period; time-barred. | Time-barred; Puerto Rico one-year limit applied. |
| Does equitable tolling apply to plaintiffs' claims? | Equitable tolling due to lack of notice and ongoing injury. | No tolling; plaintiffs knew or should have known of injury. | Equitable tolling not appropriate. |
| Does qualified immunity shield the defendant in an official-capacity suit? | Nereida-González analysis may bear on immunity. | Qualified immunity not applicable to official-capacity suits seeking damages. | Not applicable to this disposition (summary context in R&R). |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrington Cove Ltd. Partnership v. Rhode Island Housing & Mortgage Finance Corp., 246 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) (state discretion defeats cognizable property interest in tax credits)
- Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1984) (equitable tolling considerations recognized in tolling analysis)
- Kale v. Combined Ins. Co. of America, 861 F.2d 746 (1st Cir. 1988) (five-factor framework for equitable tolling)
- DiMarco-Zappa v. Cabanillas, 238 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2001) (waiver/forfeiture of objections when not timely raised)
- Rodríguez-Ortiz v. Margo Caribe, Inc., 490 F.3d 92 (1st Cir. 2007) (pleading standards require plausible entitlement to relief)
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility requirement for complaint survival)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (rejects mere conclusory assertions; requires plausible claims)
- United States v. Griffin, 324 F.3d 330 (5th Cir. 2003) (unissued tax credits may not constitute property)
- Torres v. Superintendent of Police, 893 F.2d 404 (1st Cir. 1990) (limitations governing Section 1983 actions borrow state-period rules)