In Common Matters
A precedent was established stating that it is appropriate to grant provisional suspension in indirect injunction lawsuits filed against the omission of payment of year-end bonuses to ISSSTEZAC pensioners. This is because the contested act is the omission of retirement bonus payment, not the right to receive such benefit. The omission could cause irreparable economic harm, jeopardizing the livelihood of retirees, particularly considering that they are retirees or elderly individuals.
“Digital record: 2027999
Instance: Collegiate Circuit Courts
Eleventh Epoch
Subject(s): Common
Thesis: XXIII.2o. J/2 A (11th)
Source: Judicial Weekly Gazette of the Federation
Type: Precedent
PROVISIONAL SUSPENSION IN INDIRECT INJUNCTION LAWSUIT. IT IS APPROPRIATE TO GRANT IT AGAINST THE OMISSION OF THE INSTITUTE OF SECURITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES OF STATE WORKERS OF ZACATECAS (ISSSTEZAC) TO PAY YEAR-END BONUSES TO ITS PENSIONERS.”
In Administrative Matters
The Regional Full Court in Administrative Matters of the Central-Southern Region decreed the obligation for parties involved in an administrative trial under the Law of Administrative Justice of the State of Jalisco to request the issuance of the order to present the case to the parties for written arguments, with the effect of summoning for a judgment. Otherwise, it would be appropriate to declare the expiration of the instance due to lack of procedural progress.
Furthermore, the Regional Full Court ruled that individuals proving residence or use of the adjacent environment or areas of influence of a violated ecosystem have a legitimate interest to file an indirect injunction.
“Digital record: 2027963
Instance: Regional Plenaries
Eleventh Epoch
Subject(s): Administrative
Thesis: PR.A.CS. J/41 A (11th)
Source: Judicial Weekly Gazette of the Federation
Type: Precedent
EXPIRATION OF THE INSTANCE. THE PARTIES’ OBLIGATION TO DRIVE THE PROCESS EXTENDS UNTIL THE ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER WITH SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT, AS PROVIDED IN ARTICLE 47 OF THE LAW OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE OF THE STATE OF JALISCO. THE LACK OF ACTION BY THE JURISDICTIONAL COURT AND THE FAILURE OF THE PARTIES TO REQUEST IT CONSTITUTE EXPIRATION.”
“Digital record: 2027978
Instance: Regional Plenaries
Eleventh Epoch
Subject(s): Common, Administrative
Thesis: PR.A.CS. J/34 A (11th)
Source: Judicial Weekly Gazette of the Federation
Type: Precedent
LEGITIMATE INTEREST TO FILE INDIRECT INJUNCTION IN ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS. IT IS HELD BY INDIVIDUALS WHO RESIDE IN THE ADJACENT ENVIRONMENT OF THE PRESUMEDLY VIOLATED ECOSYSTEM WHEN CHALLENGING THE MANAGEMENT AND TERRITORIAL PLANNING REGULATION, THE MUNICIPAL URBAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, AND THE PARTIAL URBAN DEVELOPMENT PLANS OF DISTRICTS 8 AND 9, ALL IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF PUERTO VALLARTA, JALISCO [APPLICATION OF PRECEDENT 1a./J. 79/2023 (11th)].”
In Civil Matters
A precedent was issued stating that, before issuing a summons by edicts, judges must decide, at their discretion, the number of requests to be sent to authorities or entities to investigate the defendant’s address. After the requests are executed, they must justify whether, in their view, the defendant’s address is unknown.
“Digital record: 2027970
Instance: Regional Plenaries
Eleventh Epoch
Subject(s): Civil
Thesis: PR.C.CN. J/23 C (11th)
Source: Judicial Weekly Gazette of the Federation
Type: Precedent
SUMMONS BY EDICTS. THE JUDGE IS NOT OBLIGATED TO SEND A SPECIFIC NUMBER OF REQUESTS NOR TO JUSTIFY WHY HE SENT SEARCH REQUESTS TO SPECIFIC AUTHORITIES OR AGENCIES WITH REGISTERS OF PERSONS AND ADDRESSES. IT IS WITHIN HIS DISCRETION TO CONDUCT THE SEARCH PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 121, SECTION II, OF THE CODE OF CIVIL ROUTE FOR THE STATE OF BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR.”
In Commercial Matters
The Regional Full Court in Civil Matters of the Central-Northern Region ruled that the order to redirect the oral commercial enforcement route to the commercial oral route, invalidating the payment claim and embargo warning to the debtor, should be considered an act with immediate and irreparable effects on the plaintiff’s assets. This is because it prevents the plaintiff from exercising the substantive right to embargo to secure a potential favorable judgment and obtain, if applicable, a preferential right over the property that could be seized.
It was also ruled that judges are prohibited from consolidating the trial hearing in the preliminary hearing when a confessional position evidence is to be taken. Such consolidation is only appropriate when admitting documentary evidence that is to be presented due to its unique and special nature.
Additionally, an isolated thesis was issued determining that acts performed by a representative whose power of attorney revocation was not notified bind the principal against third parties in good faith, even if they were performed after the revocation of power.
“Digital record: 2027982
Instance: Regional Plenaries
Eleventh Epoch
Subject(s): Common, Civil
Thesis: PR.C.CN. J/24 C (11th)
Source: Judicial Weekly Gazette of the Federation
Type: Precedent
INDIRECT AMPARO LAWSUIT. ADMISSIBLE AGAINST THE RULING THAT ORDERS REDIRECTING THE ORAL COMMERCIAL ENFORCEMENT ROUTE TO THE COMMERCIAL ORAL ROUTE AND INVALIDATING THE PAYMENT CLAIM AND EMBARGO NOTICE AGAINST THE DEBTOR.”
“Digital record: 2027990
Instance: Regional Plenaries
Eleventh Epoch
Subject(s): Civil
Thesis: PR.C.CS. J/20 C (11th)
Source: Judicial Weekly Gazette of the Federation
Type: Precedent
CONCENTRATION PRINCIPLE IN COMMERCIAL ORAL TRIAL. ARTICLE 1390 BIS 37 OF THE COMMERCIAL CODE, WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE HEARING OF THE TRIAL IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING WHEN ADMITTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE PREPARATION, DOES NOT APPLY TO THE CONFESSORIAL POSITION EVIDENCE, IF ADMITTED AND TO BE TAKEN.”
“Digital record: 2027967
Instance: Collegiate Circuit Courts
Eleventh Epoch
Subject(s): Civil
Thesis: I.2o.C.6 C (11th)
Source: Judicial Weekly Gazette of the Federation
Type: Isolated
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RATIFIED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY IN COMMERCIAL MATTERS. ONE ENTERED INTO WITH A REPRESENTATIVE NOT NOTIFIED OF THE REVOCATION OF THEIR POWER BINDS THE PRINCIPAL AGAINST THIRD PARTIES IN GOOD FAITH AND MUST BE APPROVED.
