Watchtower Bible Tract Soc'y of N.Y., Inc. v. Municipality of Ponce

197 F.Supp.3d 340

WATCHTOWER BIBLE TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,

v.MUNICIPALITY OF PONCE, Residents Association of Estancias Del Golf Club, et al., Defendants.

CASE NO. 04-1452 (GAG)

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

Signed July 6, 2016

Nora Vargas-Acosta, PHV Paul D. Polidoro, for Plaintiffs.

Maraliz Vazquez-Marrero for the Municipality of Ponce; Anselmo Irizarry-Irizarry for the resident's association Estancias del Golf Club.

OPINION AND ORDER

GUSTAVO A. GELPI, United States District Judgeⁱ

After twelve years of litigation in this First Amendment case involving the rights of Jehovah's Witnesses, the Court is at a crossroad regarding a widely-debated question of Puerto Rico real property law. Are roads in gated urbanizations of private or public nature? Specifically in this case the issue pertains to streets within Estancias del Golf Club in the Municipality of Ponce. However, the much broader legal issue pertains to many other such communities within the island's municipalities.

Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs' and Defendant Municipality of Ponce's ("Ponce") Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. (Docket Nos. 1630; 1635.) Both parties submitted substantial oppositions and replies to the respective memoranda of law and statements of fact. (Docket Nos. 1655; 1682; 1698.) Shortly after Plaintiffs and Ponce moved for cross-summary judgment, upon order of the Court, Plaintiffs joined the Residents' Association of Estancias Del Golf Club ("Estancias del Golf Club" or "EGC") as a party to this litigation. (See Docket Nos. 1662; 1664; 1686.) The Court heard oral arguments on February 17, 2016 at the Luis A. Ferré Courthouse in Ponce, Puerto Rico. (See Docket No. 1701.)

Plaintiffs posit that Estancias del Golf Club's streets are public, therefore said gated community is subject to this Court's orders and permanent injunction, hence, Jehovah's Witnesses must be granted access. (Docket No. 1630.) Ponce stands on the opposite side of the spectrum, contending that because the streets at Estancias del Golf Club were never conveyed to the municipality, they are private and therefore not subject to the injunction. (Docket No. 1635.) Both the First Circuit and this Court in this litigation have held that streets in Puerto Rico are public in nature. After protracted litigation, and various appeals, the Municipality of Ponce raised the argument —for the first time in April, 2015— that Estancias del Golf Club, a manned gated community, has private streets, therefore, said urbanization is exempt from this Court's injunction granting Jehovah's Witnesses access to gated communities to engage in religious activity protected by the First Amendment. (Docket No. 1635.)

After reviewing the parties' submissions and pertinent law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment at Docket No. 1630, and DENIES Ponce's motion for summary judgment at Docket No. 1635.

I. Overview of the Case

Before delving into the required legal analysis, the Court shall summarize the background and procedural history of this action for the benefit and understanding of the parties and the public.

Plaintiffs Watchtower Bible Tract Society of New York and the Congregación Cristiana de los Testigos de Jehová de Puerto Rico, Inc., initiated this action in 2004, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for violations of their right to free speech and free exercise of religion, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. (See Docket No. 49 ¶¶ 10-12, 62.) The Municipality of Ponce is one of eleven named municipalities and several gated community defendants. Plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of Jehovah's Witnesses who practice their faith and are, or have been, affected in the free exercise of their religion, as a result of the Puerto Rico's Controlled Access Law, Law No. 21 of May 20, 1987, P.R. LAWS ANN.tit. 23, §§ 64 -64h.¹ Jehovah's Witnesses profess the Bible's message publicly by proselytizing from house to house. This activity falls within the protected speech of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. See Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc'y of N.Y., Inc. v. Vill. of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, 160–61, 122 S.Ct. 2080, 153 L.Ed.2d 205 (2002).

In February, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit remanded this case to this Court to assure that defendant municipalities and urbanizations comply with the law, and that Jehovah's Witnesses are allowed to enter urbanizations to engage in constitutionally protected activity.² Watchtower Bible and Tract Soc'y of New York v. Sagardía de Jesús, et al., 634 F.3d 3 (1st Cir.2011), rehearing denied , 638 F.3d 81 (1st Cir.2011), cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 549, 181 L.Ed.2d 396 (2011).

The First Circuit found the Commonwealth's Controlled Access Law to be constitutional on its face. It nonetheless found that both manned and unmanned gates, as operated, violated Jehovah's Witnesses' First Amendment right to access public streets within controlled access urbanizations. Id. at 634 F.3d at 10 (citing Vill. of Stratton, 536 U.S. at 160–62, 122 S.Ct. 2080 ) ("[a]ccess to public streets and property for purposes of expression, including door-to-door religious proselytizing, has long been protected by the First Amendment."). "Public streets and sidewalks are presumptively traditional public forums, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed their status as places for expressive activity." Watchtower v. Sagardía de Jesús, 634 F.3d at 11 (internal citations omitted).

a. Remand and District Court's remedial scheme

After the First Circuit remanded the case to the district court, the municipal defendants were required to ensure Plaintiffs could access all manned and unmanned gated urbanizations. They were given the opportunity to propose action plans to ensure access to all such urbanizations. The Court fashioned its declaratory judgment pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 -2202 (2010). (See Docket No. 710.) The Declaratory Judgment Act confers substantial discretion on the federal court to declare the rights of litigants. See KG Urban Enterprises, LLC v. Patrick, 693 F.3d 1, 27 (1st Cir.2012) (citing Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 286, 115 S.Ct. 2137, 132 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995) ). The Court relied upon Puerto Rico's Civil Code and Supreme Court precedent to determine which urbanizations fall under the auspices of the Controlled Access Law.³

Subsequently, the Court made several rulings that ensured Plaintiffs could access both manned and unmanned urbanizations around the clock. In doing so, the Court balanced federal constitution and principles with those contained in the Puerto Rico's Constitution and laws. As to unmanned urbanizations, municipal defendants were ordered to collect and deliver to Plaintiffs a means of access to all unmanned urbanizations located within their municipality. Depending on the means of access, each urbanization was ordered to deliver to Plaintiffs a physical key, an access code, a beeper, or any other device necessary to permit entry to the urbanization. The means of access provided had to be equal to that of the residents of those urbanizations and had to grant Plaintiffs unfettered access to the urbanizations. (See Docket No. 978.) The remedy provided by the Court was confirmed on appeal, except for some minor modifications. See Watchtower Bible and Tract Soc'y of New York v. Mun. of San Juan, et al., 773 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.2014).

b. Defendant Municipality of Dorado and Brighton Country Club

On remand, during the implementation of the First Circuit's mandate, Dorado was the first defendant municipality to argue that an urbanization within its bounds was privately owned and completely closed to the public. Said urbanization, Brighton Country Club ("BCC") operated under an unmanned controlled access regime.⁴ Upon order from the Court, Dorado submitted a brief in support of this contention with the original deed of the property ("Original Deed"), certification of the development from Dorado, the declaration of the Municipal Administrator, Orlando Iván Vargas López, and the segregation deed ("Segregation Deed"). (See Docket Nos. 1087-1087-2, 1169-1.) Plaintiffs opposed. (Docket No. 1132.)

Based on these facts, Dorado argued that BCC's roads were completely private, closed to the public, and not subject to the orders of this Court. Dorado supported its position by emphasizing that BCC paid for the development of the roads and maintained the roads without Dorado's assistance. (See Docket No. 1087 ¶¶ 6-8.)

c. Inter Jurisdictional Certification to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court

The District Court again turned to Puerto Rico's highest court in its search for an answer to the question of Puerto Rico law that arose in this case. "[C]ertification offers a federalism benefit to federal courts. Insofar as it allows a state court to determine pertinent issues of state law, certification spares a federal court the difficult chore of determining state law." EXAMINING THE POWER OF FEDERAL COURTS TO CERTIFY QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW , 88 Cornell L. Rev. 1672, 1697 (2003).⁵

On June 11, 2013, the District Court asked the Puerto Rico Supreme Court: "Do the laws and Constitution of Puerto Rico allow for private residential roads?" (Docket No. 1173.) The District Court reasoned that the question certified was an issue of first impression that relies upon interpreting the laws and Constitution of Puerto Rico. (Docket No. 1173.) The Puerto Rico Supreme Court accepted this Court's second request of certification.⁶ (Docket No. 1217.)

d. Defendant Municipality of Ponce

Ponce had a history of non-compliance throughout the course of this litigation. Inasmuch, Ponce Municipal Police was ordered in the past to forcibly open gates as a result of its noncompliance. (See Docket Nos. 959; 1042; 1046; 1117; 1118; 1180; 1199; 1211; 1213; 1219.) Eventually, sanctions and attorneys'...