District court judgment for plaintiff finding that the settlement agreement between the parties was valid and binding is affirmed where: 1) the settlement agreement was a valid contract between the parties; 2) the settlement agreement compromised all commission-related disputes between the parties; and 3) defendant did not adequately raise a claim that the settlement was infected with “dolo,” as defendant’s attorney was experienced and accomplished and failed to allege sufficient colorable bad faith on the part of plaintiff. Denial of plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees is affirmed where: 1) the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that defendant’s suit was neither obstinate nor frivolous under the Puerto Rico Rules of Civil Procedure; and 2) a review of the record reveals no basis for finding a FRCP 11 (b) violation as there is no evidence that defendant’s claims were brought for an improper purpose, rose to the level of being frivolous, or made unsupportable factual allegations.
Read Citibank Global Markets v. Hernandez, No. 08-1533
Appellate InformationAppeal from the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.Decided July 17, 2009
JudgesBefore Lipez, Hansen, and Howard, Circuit Judges.Opinion by Howard, Circuit Judge.
CounselFor Plaintiff: Néstor M. Méndez Gómez, Janitza M. García-Marrero and Pietrantoni Mendez & Alvarez LLP.
For Defendant: Rubén T. Nigaglioni, Nigaglioni & Ferraiuoli Law Offices, PSC.
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
