230629 ORD RE UTIER MOT FOR PI VERSION JUNE 29, 2023 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

In re:

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO,

as representative of

COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO et al.,

Debtors. 1

PROMESA 

Title III

No. 17 BK 3283-LTS

(Jointly Administered)

In re:

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO,

as representative of

THE PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC POWER 

AUTHORITY,

Debtors.

PROMESA 

Title III

No. 17 BK 4780-LTS

(Jointly Administered)

1 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case 

number and the last four (4) digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as 

applicable, are the (i) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK3283- LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax 

Financing Corporation (“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK-3284-LTS) (Last Four 

Digits of Federal Tax ID: 8474); (iii) Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation 

Authority (“HTA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK-3567-LTS) (Last Four Digits of 

Federal Tax ID: 3808); (iv) Employees Retirement System of the Government of the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (“ERS”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK-3566-LTS) (Last 

Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 9686); (v) Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority 

(“PREPA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17- BK-4780-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax 

ID: 3747); and (vi) Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority (“PBA”) (Bankruptcy Case 

No. 19-BK-5523-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3801) (Title III case 

numbers are listed as Bankruptcy Case numbers due to software limitations).

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24689 Filed:06/29/23 Entered:06/29/23 11:00:54 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 15
230629 ORD RE UTIER MOT FOR PI VERSION JUNE 29, 2023 2

UNIÓN DE TRABAJADORES DE LA INDUSTRIA 

ELÉCTRICA Y RIEGO, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY; THE 

FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT 

BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, as representative of 

PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY; 

PUERTO RICO PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP 

AUTHORITY; and GENERA PR LLC

 Defendants.

Adv. Proc. No. 23-00045-LTS

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24689 Filed:06/29/23 Entered:06/29/23 11:00:54 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 15
230629 ORD RE UTIER MOT FOR PI VERSION JUNE 29, 2023 3

APPEARANCES:

BUFETE EMMANUELLI, C.S.P.

By: Rolando Emmanuelli-Jiménez

 Jessica E. Méndez-Colberg

 Zoé C. Negrón-Comas

P.O. Box 10779

Ponce, Puerto Rico 00732

Counsel for UTIER

MARINI PIETRANTONI MUÑIZ LLC P.S.C.

By: Luis C. Marini-Biaggi

250 Ponce de León Ave., Suite 900

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918

DÍAZ & VÁZQUEZ LAW FIRM, P.S.C

By: Arturo Díaz Angueira

290 Jesús T. Piñero Ave.

Oriental Tower, Suite 803

San Juan, PR 00918

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP

By: John J. Rapisardi

Peter Friedman

 Maria J. DiConza

7 Times Square

New York, New York 10036

 and

 Elizabeth L. McKeen

By:

610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor

Newport Beach, CA 92660

 and

 Madhu Pocha

By:

1999 Avenue of the Stars, 8th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067

Attorneys for the Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency

and Financial Advisory Authority, the Puerto

Rico Electric Power Authority and the Puerto

Rico Public-Private Partnership Authority

O’NEILL & BORGES LLC

By: Hermann D. Bauer

250 Muñoz Rivera Ave., Suite 800

San Juan, PR 00918-1813

PROSKAUER ROSE LLP

By: Martin J. Bienenstock

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24689 Filed:06/29/23 Entered:06/29/23 11:00:54 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 15
230629 ORD RE UTIER MOT FOR PI VERSION JUNE 29, 2023 4

Paul V. Possinger

Ehud Barak

Jonathan E. Richman

Margaret A. Dale

Eleven Times Square

New York, NY 10036

 and

By: Timothy W. Mungovan

Laura E. Stafford

One International Place

Boston, MA 02110

Attorneys for Defendant Financial Oversight

and Management Board for Puerto Rico, in its

own right and as representative for PREPA

ECIJA SBGB LLC

By: Jorge A. Fernández-Reboredo

P.O. Box 363068

San Juan, PR 00936-3068

Attorneys for Genera PR LLC

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24689 Filed:06/29/23 Entered:06/29/23 11:00:54 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 15
230629 ORD RE UTIER MOT FOR PI VERSION JUNE 29, 2023 5

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, United States District Judge

Before the Court is the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket Entry No. 2 in 

Adv. Proc. No. 23-00045) 2 (the “Motion”), filed by Unión de Trabajadores de La Industria 

Eléctrica y Riego (“UTIER”). The Motion requests an order enjoining the implementation of the 

Puerto Rico Thermal Generation Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement dated as of 

January 24, 2023 (Docket Entry No. 2-1 and 17-1) (the “O&M Agreement”) between the Puerto 

Rico Electric Power Authority (“PREPA”) and Genera PR LLC (“Genera”). Under the terms of 

the O&M Agreement, Genera is scheduled to assume operation of PREPA’s Legacy Generation 

Assets3 on July 1, 2023. UTIER commenced the instant adversary proceeding against PREPA, 

the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (the “Oversight Board”), the 

Puerto Rico Public-Private Partnership Authority (“P3”), and Genera (collectively, 

“Defendants”), seeking a declaratory judgment that the O&M Agreement is null and void under

Puerto Rico law (the First Claim for Relief),

4 and that the O&M Agreement is null and void for 

violating public order (the Second Claim for Relief).

The Court heard oral argument in connection with the Motion on June 28, 2023. 

(the “PI Hearing”) (June 28, 2023 PI Hearing Transcript, the “PI Hearing Tr.”). The Court has 

2 All docket entry references herein are to entries in Adversary Proceeding No. 23-00045 

(the “Adversary Proceeding”), unless otherwise specified.

3 Legacy Generation Assets are defined as “the base-load generation plants and 

combustion turbine peaking units listed on Annex I . . . in which [PREPA] has an 

ownership interest.” (O&M Agreement at 1). 

4 While the Complaint references “federal law,” the Motion does not rely on or address any 

federal claims. (Compl. at 23.) 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24689 Filed:06/29/23 Entered:06/29/23 11:00:54 Desc: Main

Document Page 5 of 15
230629 ORD RE UTIER MOT FOR PI VERSION JUNE 29, 2023 6

considered carefully all the parties’ submissions5 and arguments and, for the following reasons,

denies UTIER’s Motion.

I. 

BACKGROUND

 The following facts, which are drawn from the parties’ submissions, are 

undisputed. In 2018, the Puerto Rico Legislative Assembly passed the Puerto Rico Electric 

Power System Transformation Act, Act No. 120-2018 (“Act 120”), codified at 22 L.P.R.A. 

§ 1111 et seq., which authorized and established the legal framework for the sale, disposition, 

and/or transfer of the assets, operations, and services of PREPA through a public-private 

partnership, in accordance with the Public-Private Partnership Act, Act No. 29-2009, 

27 L.P.R.A. § 2601 et seq. (“Act 29”). (See Mot. ¶ 2; Opp. ¶ 10.) 

On January 24, 2023, PREPA, the P3, and Genera executed the O&M Agreement.

(See O&M Agreement at 1.) The O&M Agreement provides for Genera to assume operation, 

maintenance, and administration of the Legacy Generation Assets to generate electricity and 

deliver it to the transmission and distribution system, while PREPA retains ownership of the 

Legacy Generation Assets and transmission and distribution assets. (See id. at Art. 4.) Pursuant 

to Act 120, current PREPA employees will have various employment options including to

(i) apply for employment with Genera, (ii) remain at PREPA if a position is available, or 

5 The written submissions comprise the Complaint (Docket Entry No. 1) (the 

“Complaint”); the Declaration of Mr. Josué Mitjá González in Support of UTIER’s 

Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket Entry No. 2-2) (the “Mitjá González Decl.”); 

Defendants’ Joint Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Motion (Docket Entry No. 16)

(the “Opposition”); the Declaration of Ellen S. Smith in Support of Defendants’ Joint 

Opposition to UTIER’s Preliminary Injunction Motion (Docket Entry No. 17); the Reply 

to Defendants’ Joint Opposition to UTIER’s Preliminary Injunction Motion (Docket 

Entry No. 25) (the “Reply”), and the Declaration of José Rivera (Docket Entry No. 25-3). 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24689 Filed:06/29/23 Entered:06/29/23 11:00:54 Desc: Main

Document Page 6 of 15
230629 ORD RE UTIER MOT FOR PI VERSION JUNE 29, 2023 7

(iii) transfer to another government agency. (See Mot ¶¶ 16-18, Opp. ¶ 53.) See 22 L.P.R.A. 

§ 1121.

UTIER is a union that represents PREPA employees. (See Mitjá González Decl.

¶ 3.) UTIER is party to a collective bargaining agreement (the “CBA”) with PREPA, which 

provides for certain employment terms, conditions, and benefits for UTIER’s members who are 

employed by PREPA. (See Mitjá González Decl. ¶ 3.) UTIER does not allege that PREPA 

would not continue to recognize the CBA with respect to employees who remain at PREPA.

On June 16, 2023, UTIER commenced this adversary proceeding against 

Defendants. (See Compl., Docket Entry No. 1.) 

II. 

DISCUSSION

Section 305 of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability 

Act (“PROMESA”) provides that: “notwithstanding any power of the court, unless the Oversight 

Board consents or the plan so provides, the court may not, by any stay, order, or decree . . . 

interfere with -- (1) any of the political or governmental powers of the debtor; (2) any of the 

property or revenues of the debtor; or (3) the use or enjoyment by the debtor of any incomeproducing property.” 48 U.S.C.A. § 2165 (Westlaw through P.L. 118-6) (emphasis added). The 

Oversight Board consents to the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction to adjudicate the substantive 

issues raised in the Motion pursuant to section 305 of PROMESA. (See Opp. ¶ 8 n.5.) 

Defendants argue that UTIER lacks standing to assert its claims that are based on 

broad legal and public policy principles. Defendants further argue that, even if UTIER has 

standing, UTIER is not entitled to injunctive relief because UTIER has not demonstrated a 

likelihood of success on the merits of its claims, that it will face irreparable harm if the Motion is 

not granted, or that consideration of the public interest supports a preliminary injunction.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24689 Filed:06/29/23 Entered:06/29/23 11:00:54 Desc: Main

Document Page 7 of 15
230629 ORD RE UTIER MOT FOR PI VERSION JUNE 29, 2023 8

In light of the Oversight Board’s expressed consent to the adjudication of the 

Motion before the Title III Court, the Court now turns to its analysis of the parties’ arguments,

beginning with the question of whether UTIER has Article III standing to assert its claims.

A. Standing

This Court’s jurisdiction is limited by Article III of the Constitution of the United 

States to the adjudication of “Cases” and “Controversies.” See Lyman v. Baker, 954 F.3d 351,

360 (1st Cir. 2020) (citing Hochendoner v. Genzyme Corp., 823 F.3d 724, 731 (1st Cir. 2016) 

(quoting U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1)). “The heartland of constitutional standing is composed 

of the familiar amalgam of injury in fact, causation, and redressability.” Id. (quoting 

Hochendoner, 823 F.3d at 731). As the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has

explained:

An injury-in-fact is the invasion of a legally protected interest that 

is both “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent,” as 

opposed to “conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan [v. Defenders of 

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)] (internal quotation marks 

omitted). Concreteness and particularity are two separate 

requirements. See Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, [136 S. Ct. 1540, 1545

(2016)]. To be concrete, an injury must “actually exist”; it cannot 

be “abstract.” Id. at 1548. For an injury to be “particularized,” it 

must go beyond a “generalized grievance[ ],” DaimlerChrysler 

Corp. v. Cuno, [547 U.S. 332, 344, 348 (2006)] (citation omitted), 

to manifestly “affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way,” 

Lujan, [504 U.S. at 560 n.1]. Injuries that are too “widely shared” 

or are “comparable to the common concern for obedience to law” 

may fall into the category of generalized grievances about the 

conduct of government. Becker v. Fed. Election Comm’n., 230 F.3d 

381, 390 (1st Cir. 2000); see Lance v. Coffman, [549 U.S. 437, 442

(2007)].

Causation is established by demonstrating a causal connection 

“between the injury and the conduct complained of,” where the 

injury is “fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the 

defendant[,] and not . . . th[e] result [of] the independent action of 

some third party not before the court.” Lujan, [504 U.S. at 560-61]

(alterations in original) (quoting Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24689 Filed:06/29/23 Entered:06/29/23 11:00:54 Desc: Main

Document Page 8 of 15
230629 ORD RE UTIER MOT FOR PI VERSION JUNE 29, 2023 9

Org., [426 U.S. 26, 41-42 (1976)]). Finally, “it must be ‘likely,’ as 

opposed to merely ‘speculative,’ that the injury will be ‘redressed 

by a favorable decision.’” Id. [at 561] (quoting Simon, [426 U.S. 

at 38, 43]).

Lyman, 954 F.3d at 360-61. See also Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1547 (stating that, to demonstrate 

constitutional standing, a plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly 

traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a 

favorable judicial decision).

“In addition to these Article III prerequisites, prudential concerns ordinarily 

require a plaintiff to show that his claim is premised on his own legal rights (as opposed to those 

of a third party), that his claim is not merely a generalized grievance, and that it falls within the 

zone of interests protected by the law invoked.” Pagan v. Calderon, 448 F.3d 16, 27 (1st Cir. 

2006). A plaintiff’s invocation of public policy interests, absent more, is not sufficiently 

particularized, but instead constitutes a “generalized grievance.” A “generalized grievance” that 

alleges an injury “which is ‘shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of 

citizens,’ does not justify the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction.” Nogueras Cartagena v. Maria 

Calderon, 150 F. Supp. 2d. 338, 343 (D.P.R. 2001) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 

(1975)). Injuries that are too “widely shared” or are “comparable to the common concern for 

obedience to law” may fall into the category of generalized grievances about the conduct of 

government. Becker, 230 F.3d at 390 (internal quotation omitted). Such prudential 

considerations are “not as inexorable as their Article III counterparts,” Pagan, 448 F.3d at 27, but 

they can, as here, help in discerning whether an alleged injury properly falls within the sweep of 

Article III. Moreover, “[t]he standing inquiry is claim-specific: a plaintiff must have standing to 

bring each and every claim that she asserts.” Katz v. Pershing, LLC, 672 F.3d 64, 71 (1st Cir. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24689 Filed:06/29/23 Entered:06/29/23 11:00:54 Desc: Main

Document Page 9 of 15
230629 ORD RE UTIER MOT FOR PI VERSION JUNE 29, 2023 10

2012) (citation omitted). Thus, the Court will assess UTIER’s standing to bring each of the 

claims that is has asserted.

UTIER argues that it has standing to assert claims on behalf of itself and its 

membership by virtue of the imminent loss of its membership, and Defendants do not dispute 

that UTIER will lose members when many PREPA employees are hired by Genera or transferred 

to other government agencies. (See Reply ¶¶ 21-22.) 

The Court has already considered, and rejected, UTIER’s argument that its 

imminent loss of membership is a sufficient basis to establish standing to assert broad claims 

based on disagreements with various public policy principles in the context of PREPA’s ability 

to enter into public-private partnerships and execute operation and maintenance agreements. 

UTIER v. Pierluisi-Urrutia (In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R.), 631 B.R. 571, 580-83 

(D.P.R. 2021), reconsideration denied, Adv. Proc. No. 21-00041 (D.P.R. June 1, 2021) (Docket 

Entry No. 61 in Adv. Proc. No. 21-00041) (the “LUMA Opinion”). In that decision, the Court 

determined that UTIER lacked standing to challenge the validity of an operation and 

maintenance agreement between PREPA and the third-party private operator of PREPA’s 

transmission and distribution assets, LUMA Energy, LLC and LUMA Energy ServCo, LLC 

(“LUMA”). Id. The First and Second Claims for Relief6 in Adversary Proceeding No. 21-0041 

(the “LUMA Action”) are nearly identical to the First, Second, and Third Claims for Relief 

articulated in the instant Complaint. (Compare LUMA Amended Compl. ¶¶ 268-71, with

Compl. ¶¶ 69-83.) In the LUMA Action, the Court held:

Each of these allegations concerns disagreement with the 

Legislature’s decisions with respect to Puerto Rico’s energy policy, 

6 UTIER, and other plaintiffs, commenced the LUMA Action on April 20, 2021. The 

operative complaint can be found at Docket Entry Nos. 1 and 7 in Adv. Proc. No. 21-

00041 (the “LUMA Amended Compl.”).

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24689 Filed:06/29/23 Entered:06/29/23 11:00:54 Desc: Main

Document Page 10 of 15
230629 ORD RE UTIER MOT FOR PI VERSION JUNE 29, 2023 11

or harms that are widely shared by the people of Puerto Rico 

generally rather than to any of the UTIER [members] specifically. 

Such policy disagreements and broad allegations of societal harm 

due to government noncompliance with law are insufficient to 

support Article III standing. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 575-76 

(explaining that “an injury amounting only to the alleged violation 

of a right to have the Government act in accordance with law was

not judicially cognizable because assertion of a right to a particular 

kind of Government conduct, which the Government has violated 

by acting differently, cannot alone satisfy the requirements of Art. 

III without draining those requirements of meaning.” (internal 

quotation and citation omitted)).

LUMA Opinion, 631 B.R. 571, 580-83 (D.P.R. 2021). In doing so, the Court noted that “[t]his 

aspect of UTIER’s claim rests on more than UTIER’s claims of loss of membership or 

contractual rights: UTIER challenge[s] the validity of the O&M Agreement based on broad legal 

and public policy principles and [UTIER] argue[s] that [the O&M Agreement] should not have 

been approved [by P3] and should not be implemented.” Id.

At the PI Hearing, Defendants argued that there is a clear “disconnect between the 

claims and the nature of the harm that UTIER claims it will suffer.” (PI Hearing Tr. 25:21-24). 

The point is well taken. First, as counsel for AAFAF noted, UTIER argues that the contract is 

leonine and violates public order because “all its clauses benefit Genera while virtually none 

benefit PREPA.” (Mot. ¶ 13.) However, UTIER has failed to explain how an imbalance in the 

perceived benefits Genera receives under the O&M Agreement has any causal connection to the 

diminution of UTIER’s membership. Second, although UTIER argues that the O&M Agreement 

“transfers control of 69% of PREPA’s generation asset capacity [...] by creating a monopoly in 

generation” and therefore is violative of Puerto Rico law (Mot. ¶ 4), the alleged impact on 

UTIER’s membership arises generally from the government’s decision to privatize the 

management of the legacy generation assets, not from the fact that, under the particular 

privatization scheme contemplated by the O&M Agreement, a substantial portion of the legacy 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24689 Filed:06/29/23 Entered:06/29/23 11:00:54 Desc: Main

Document Page 11 of 15
230629 ORD RE UTIER MOT FOR PI VERSION JUNE 29, 2023 12

generation assets will all be managed by a single entity. The Court is persuaded that the injury 

asserted—loss of membership—flows from a fundamental disagreement with the public policy 

decision of PREPA and P3 to enter into the public-private partnership with Genera rather than 

from the alleged legal infirmities of the agreement with Genera. 

For substantially the same reasons upon which the Court determined that UTIER 

lacked standing in the LUMA Action, UTIER’s theories of standing are not viable here. The 

policy disagreements and broad allegations of societal harm due to government noncompliance 

with law proffered by UTIER are insufficient to support Article III standing. See Lujan, 

504 U.S. at 575-76 (explaining that “an injury amounting only to the alleged violation of a right 

to have the Government act in accordance with law was not judicially cognizable because 

assertion of a right to a particular kind of Government conduct, which the Government has 

violated by acting differently, cannot alone satisfy the requirements of Art. III without draining 

those requirements of meaning.” (internal quotation and citation omitted).) 

Specifically, UTIER lacks standing to assert its claims that: (ii) the O&M 

Agreement is a private vertical monopoly in violation of Act 120 because it “transfers control of 

69% of PREPA’s generation asset capacity” (Mot. ¶ 4), and (iii) the O&M Agreement is a 

leonine contract “contrary to public order” because “all its clauses benefit Genera while virtually 

none benefit PREPA” (Mot. ¶ 13). 

Accordingly, UTIER has not established that is has standing to pursue the claims 

against Defendants upon which it seeks preliminary injunctive relief. 

B. Preliminary Injunction

Even if the Court were to accept that UTIER has standing to sue on the basis of 

the asserted claims, UTIER has failed to demonstrate its entitlement to an injunction. “To obtain 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24689 Filed:06/29/23 Entered:06/29/23 11:00:54 Desc: Main

Document Page 12 of 15
230629 ORD RE UTIER MOT FOR PI VERSION JUNE 29, 2023 13

a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating (1) a substantial 

likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a significant risk of irreparable harm if the injunction is 

withheld, (3) a favorable balance of hardships, and (4) a fit (or lack of friction) between the 

injunction and the public interest.” Nieves-Marquez v. Puerto Rico, 353 F.3d 108, 120 (1st Cir. 

2003) (citing McGuire v. Reilly, 260 F.3d 36, 42 (1st Cir. 2001)).

UTIER’s primary assertion of irreparable harm arises from decreased union 

membership.

7

 Defendants argue, and UTIER does not dispute, that the expected decrease in 

union membership will not leave UTIER defunct. UTIER can continue to operate, collect 

membership dues from its remaining members, and provide representation services to its 

remaining members despite the disassociation of certain PREPA employees as a result of the 

O&M Agreement. To the extent that shrinkage of its membership impairs its ability to cover its 

financial obligations, such injury is remediable by way of damages. Grievances that are clearly 

remediable through payment of money do not, in and of themselves, support a finding of 

irreparable harm. See Vaquería Tres Monjitas, Inc. v. Irizarry, 587 F.3d 464, 485 (1st Cir. 

2009). See also NACM-New England, Inc. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Credit Mgmt., Inc., 927 F.3d 1, 5 

(1st Cir. 2019). To demonstrate that it will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a 

preliminary injunction, UTIER must proffer evidence sufficient to establish a likelihood that the 

execution of the O&M Agreement would prevent UTIER from being made whole if it eventually 

prevails in an action for economic damages associated with unlawful actions by Defendants that 

result in the diminution of UTIER’s membership. UTIER has not done so.

Furthermore, UTIER commenced this action and initiated this motion practice on 

7 UTIER clarified its position at the PI Hearing, explaining that UTIER is asserting claims 

on behalf of itself, as an organization, insofar as the O&M Agreement decreases its 

membership and impairs UTIER’s ability to fulfill its purpose. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24689 Filed:06/29/23 Entered:06/29/23 11:00:54 Desc: Main

Document Page 13 of 15
230629 ORD RE UTIER MOT FOR PI VERSION JUNE 29, 2023 14

June 16, 2023, mere days before the O&M Agreement is scheduled to be implemented. (See

Compl. See also Mot.) The uncontroverted Smith Declaration details the immediate economic 

and safety risks to PREPA and the people of Puerto Rico should the O&M Agreement, a critical 

operation and maintenance agreement that is the product of years of public negotiation by 

government parties and various stakeholders, be abruptly terminated with a few days’ notice. 

(See Smith Decl. ¶¶ 22-25.) Defendants argue, and the Court agrees, that UTIER’s undue delay 

in seeking injunctive relief undercuts its argument that the union is in imminent risk of 

irreparable harm. See, e.g., Charlesbank Equity Fund II v. Blinds To Go, Inc., 370 F.3d 151, 163 

(1st Cir. 2004) (finding that plaintiffs were not entitled to injunctive relief based, in part, on the 

procedural posture of the case and plaintiffs’ undue delay seeking injunctive relief).8

Accordingly, the Court concludes that, even if UTIER had standing to assert its claims, UTIER 

has failed to proffer evidence sufficient to demonstrate irreparable harm. Without satisfying

each element of the four-prong analysis of the preliminary injunction standard, UTIER cannot 

meet its burden to obtain an injunction. 

D. Remaining Preliminary Injunction Factors and Party Arguments

The Court need not address the remaining factors of the preliminary injunction 

standard, or the parties’ additional arguments in light of the Court’s determinations that UTIER 

lacks standing to assert its claims and has failed to sustain its burden on the issue of irreparable 

harm. 

8 UTIER’s argument that its delay was justified because Genera did not engage it in 

discussions of the impact of the transaction is unpersuasive.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24689 Filed:06/29/23 Entered:06/29/23 11:00:54 Desc: Main

Document Page 14 of 15
230629 ORD RE UTIER MOT FOR PI VERSION JUNE 29, 2023 15

III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is denied. This Order resolves Docket 

Entry No. 2 in Adv. Proc. No. 23-00045.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2023

 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain 

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

United States District Judge

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24689 Filed:06/29/23 Entered:06/29/23 11:00:54 Desc: Main

Document Page 15 of 15