Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Puerto Rico Land & Fruit, S.E. v. De Culebra, 09-2280 (ADC). (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Puerto Rico Number: infdco20190823f33 Visitors: 5
Filed: Aug. 22, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 22, 2019
Summary: ORDER AIDA M. DELGADO-COL N , District Judge . Before the Court is a motion filed by CORALations, Inc., ("Coralations") to unseal a settlement agreement between Plaintiff Puerto Rico Land & Fruit ("PRLF") and Defendants Municipality of Culebra ("the Municipality") and Culebra Conservation and Development Authority ("ACDEC"). ECF No. 381. PRLF and ACDEC did not file an opposition to Coralations' request. The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Bruce J. McGiverin for a Report &
More

ORDER

Before the Court is a motion filed by CORALations, Inc., ("Coralations") to unseal a settlement agreement between Plaintiff Puerto Rico Land & Fruit ("PRLF") and Defendants Municipality of Culebra ("the Municipality") and Culebra Conservation and Development Authority ("ACDEC"). ECF No. 381. PRLF and ACDEC did not file an opposition to Coralations' request.

The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Bruce J. McGiverin for a Report & Recommendation ("R & R"). ECF No. 382. Magistrate Judge McGiverin issued a R & R recommending the Court grant the motion to unseal the settlement agreement filed at ECF No. 182.1 ECF No. 385. The R &R informed the parties they had fourteen days to file an objection. The parties did not file any objections. The Court hereby deems the R & R unopposed and submitted for final determination.

After careful review, the Court ADOPTS the R & R and herein incorporates it by reference in full2. ECF No. 385. For the reasons outlined in the R & R, the Court GRANTS Coralations' motion to unseal the settlement agreement between PRLF and ACDEC filed at ECF No. 182.

SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. There are two settlement agreements filed under seal in the docket. Coralations did not identify which settlement agreement it sought to unseal. The R & R concluded that Coralations' motion refers to the agreement at ECF No. 182, to which Coralations did not object. Accordingly, the Court interprets Coralations' request as limited to ECF No. 182.
2. The Court notes that at page 1 of the Report and Recommendation, it should read that "PRLF, the Municipality and ACDEC did not reply, which waives their objection to Coralations' motion." ECF No. 385. This does not however impact the adoption of all arguments set forth in the R & R.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer