Noreen Wiscovitch Rentas, Chapter 7 Trustee v. MAPFRE PRAICO Insurance Company; PUMA ENERGY CARIBE LLC

Opinion

THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 2

4 IN RE: CASE NO. 13-06718 BKT 5 6 LUIS DIESEL SERVICES INC Chapter 7

7 Adversary No. 15-00207 8 9 Debtor(s)

10 NOREEN WISCOVITCH RENTAS, 11 CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE 12 Plaintiff 13 vs. 14 15 MAPFRE PRAICO Insurance Company; PUMA ENERGY CARIBE LLC 16

17 Defendant(s) FILED & ENTERED ON 03/01/2019

18 19

20 22 Before the court is the Chapter 7 Trustee Noreen Wiscovitch-Rentas’ (hereinafter “Plaintiff” 23 or “Trustee”) Motion Requesting entry of Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 37]; Plaintiff’s Statement of 24 25 Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 38]; Co-Defendant Puma Energy

1 1 Caribe’s (hereinafter “PUMA” or “Defendant”) Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment at 2 Docket No. 37 [Dkt. No. 44]; Co-Defendant MAPFRE PRAICO Insurance Company’s (hereinafter 3 “MAPFRE” or “Defendant”) Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Entry of Summary 4 5 Judgment (Docket No. 37), Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof, and Cross-Motion for 6 Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 48]; Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s PUMA Opposition to Plaintiff’s 7 Motion Requesting Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 49]; Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s MAPFRE 8 9 Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 51]; PUMA’s Motion for 10 Summary Judgment and for Other Relief [Dkt. No. 54]; and lastly, Plaintiff’s Opposition to Co- 11 Defendant’s, PUMA, Motion Requesting Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 57]. 12 13 The Trustee states in her motion for summary judgment that the payment, in the amount of 14 $93,325, made from MAPFRE to PUMA was from the Debtor’s Luis Diesel Services, Inc.’s 15 (hereinafter “Debtor”) own funds. Moreover, MAPFRE never provided the bond in the amount of 16 17 $200,000 purchased by the Debtor on or about July 5, 2013. This payment resulted in a preferential 18 transfer of Debtor’s monies to a creditor for an antecedent debt during the preferential period. As 19 such, this case meets all the requirements of § 547(b). 20 21 In turn, PUMA and MAPFRE arguments, in their oppositions to the Trustee’s motion for 22 summary judgment, are essentially the same. First, that the procedural history of this adversary 23 proceeding and Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute bar the granting of summary judgment in her favor. In 24 25 addition, the Defendants state that the Trustee’s motion lacks proper evidentiary support, does not

2 1 eliminate all material factual issues, and that the transfer of monies may not be avoided as a 2 preference to the extent that the transfer was intended by Plaintiff, MAPFRE and PUMA to be a 3 contemporaneous exchange of new value pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(1) and (c)(4) for the benefit 4 5 of the Debtor. 6 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), made applicable in bankruptcy by Federal Rule of 7 Bankruptcy Procedure 7056, summary judgment is available if the pleadings, depositions, answers to 8 9 interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine 10 issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. 11 Civ. P. 56(c); Borges ex rel. S.M.B.W. v. Serrano-Isern, 605 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2010). A fact is deemed 12 "material" if it potentially could affect the outcome of the suit. Borges at 5. Moreover, there will only be a 13 14 "genuine" or "trial worthy" issue as to such a "material fact," "if a reasonable fact-finder, examining the 15 evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences helpful to the party resisting summary judgment, could 16 resolve the dispute in that party's favor." Id. at 4. 17 After reviewing the arguments of the parties, and the relevant law, this court concludes that 18 19 there is a genuine issue as to a material fact, specifically, whether the payment of $100,000.00 made 20 by Debtor to MAPFRE originated from property of the Debtor. This is a material fact that mandates 21 an evidentiary hearing. With regards to the alleged procedural deficiencies of the Plaintiff’s motion 22 23 for summary judgment, this court adopts the finding of the First Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel 24 in its Opinion and Order dated May 4, 2018 [Dkt. No. 79, page 21, N. 13] which found that all the 25

3 1 || parties were delayed in filing the motion for summary judgment, the oppositions and cross motions, 2 This delay was due to the pending motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the moving parties are no 3 4 || entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ° WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and fo 6 Other Relief [Dkt. No. 37]; MAPFRE’s Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Entry o 7 g || Summary Judgment (Docket No. 37), Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof, and Cross-Motio 9 || for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 48]; and PUMA’s Motion for Summary Judgment and for Othe 10 Relief [Dkt. No. 54] shall be, and hereby are, DENIED. The Clerk shall schedule a pre-trial hearing, 11 12 || with the joint pretrial report to be filed seven (7) days prior to said hearing. 14 San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 1st day of March, 2019. 15 16 eo Hie 18 Brian K. Tester 19 U.S. Bankruptcy Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25