Rocket Learning, Inc. v. Rivera-Sanchez
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44961
D.P.R.2012Background
- Plaintiffs are SES providers in Puerto Rico for the 2010-2011 year, certified under the Old Manual.
- Old Manual did not require listing every electronic device; it required describing teaching materials.
- New Manual (Sept. 2010) required that all electronic devices be specifically identified in the proposal.
- In Nov. 2010, PRDE circulated an email to some providers for additional device information; plaintiffs did not receive it.
- PRDE allowed gifts/promotions of devices only for providers complying with the New Manual or who received the Nov. email, excluding plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in March 2011; magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation later adopted in part and rejected in part by the Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal protection: were plaintiffs treated differently from similarly situated providers? | Plaintiffs were similarly situated to providers who included technology and received the Nov. email. | Plaintiffs were not similarly situated; their proposals did not include the devices that triggered the Nov. email. | Dismissed equal protection claim. |
| Due process: did SES certification create a property interest deserving due process protections? | SES certification created a property entitlement. | No property right to participate in pre-enrollment process under Puerto Rico law. | Dismissed due process claim. |
| Commercial speech/free speech: did restrictions on promoting device giveaways infringe the First Amendment? | Gifts/promotion barred unconstitutional; impinged on commercial speech. | Regulation rationally related to legitimate objectives; not strict scrutiny. | Dismissed free speech/commercial speech claim. |
| Qualified immunity: are defendants entitled to immunity on these claims? | Qualified immunity not applicable if rights violated. | MOOT (based on dismissal of underlying claims) |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrington Cove Ltd. Partnership v. Rhode Island Hsg. & Mortg. Finance Corp., 246 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) (test for ‘similarly situated’ in equal protection analysis)
- Pagan v. Calderon, 448 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2006) (denial of benefits; requires showing different treatment plus gross abuse or unfair procedure)
- Clark v. Boscher, 514 F.3d 107 (1st Cir. 2008) (discriminatory intent standard in equal protection)
- Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (U.S. 1979) (discriminatory purpose requires more than awareness of consequences)
- Creative Environments, Inc. v. Estabrook, 680 F.2d 822 (1st Cir. 1982) (standard for disparate impact in administrative action)
- Trans-Spec Truck Service, Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc., 524 F.3d 315 (1st Cir. 2008) (exhibits incorporated; documents attached to complaint reviewed in 12(b)(6))
- Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1993) (narrow exceptions to considering additional records in 12(b)(6))
- Cancel v. Municipio de San Juan, 1 P.R. Offic. Trans. 416, 101 D.P.R. 296 (1973) (no property interest in bid absent formal contract)