Torres v. Gonzalez

• Court: United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Puerto Rico
• Citation: 980 F.Supp.2d 143
• Docket Number: Civil No.: 09–1886 (DRD).
• Parties: Grace Rodriguez TORRES, et al., Plaintiff(s), v. Jaime Muniz GONZALEZ; Jose Madera Casiano; Puerto Rico Police Department; Pedro Toledo; Jose Figueroa Sancha; John Doe; Nancy Doe; Insurance Company A; Benjamin Rodriguez; Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, et al., Defendant(s).
• Decision Date: 30 September 2013

980 F.Supp.2d 143

Grace Rodriguez TORRES, et al., Plaintiff(s),
v.
Jaime Muniz GONZALEZ; Jose Madera Casiano; Puerto Rico Police Department; Pedro Toledo; Jose Figueroa Sancha; John Doe; Nancy Doe; Insurance Company A; Benjamin Rodriguez; Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, et al., Defendant(s).

Civil No.: 09–1886 (DRD).

United States District Court,
D. Puerto Rico.

Sept. 30, 2013.

[980 F.Supp.2d 144]

Frank D. Inserni–Milam, Frank D. Inserni Law Office, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiffs.

Yadhira Ramirez–Toro, Department of Justice, San Juan, PR, for Defendants.

ORDER
DANIEL R. DOMINGUEZ, District Judge.

Pending before the Court are: (a) Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Amended Opinion and Order ( Docket No. 153), Docket No. 154; (b) Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's “Motion for Reconsideration,” Docket No. 158, and (c) Plaintiffs' reply to Defendant's Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration, Docket No. 161. For the reasons set forth below, the motion for reconsideration filed by Plaintiffs is denied.

Introduction

Plaintiffs Grace Rodríguez Torres on her own and on behalf of her daughters Alondra Lasalle–Rodríguez; Carolina Chacón–Rodríguez and Greisa Chacón Rodríguez (“Rodríguez” or “Plaintiffs”), filed the instant action on September 3, 2009 as a civil rights case under 42 U.S.C §§ 1983, 198542 U.S.C § 2000e–5(e)(1) and Articles 1802 and 1803 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, 31 L.P.R.A §§ 5141, 5142; Puerto Rico Law No. 17, 29 L.P.R.A §§ 155, et seq., Law No. 69, and 29 L.P.R.A § 146, against the Puerto Rico Police Department and several of its agents. See Amended Opinion and Order Nunc Pro Tunc, Docket. 153. On March 16, 2010, Plaintiff Grace Rodríguez filed a second amended complaint that established that she had complied with the “time limitations applicable necessary to bring this suit into court”. See Docket No. 13, page 1. The Court refers to the factual and procedural background set forth in its Amended Opinion and Order Nunc Pro Tunc of September 30, 2012, Docket No. 153, to avoid reciting the same set of facts, as well as the chronology of administrative claims as set forth therein. See Grace Rodríguez Torres et al. v. Jaime Muñiz Gonzalez, 898 F.Supp.2d 433 (D.P.R.2012). In sum, on September 30, 2012, the instant case was dismissed with prejudice, on the grounds that the instant action is time-barred, as there was an interruption of the

[980 F.Supp.2d 145]

term to sue and there was no exhaustion of EEOC remedies. Furthermore, a Title VII claim cannot be pursued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Procedural Background

On October 16, 2012 Plaintiffs moved the Court for reconsideration of the Amended Opinion and Order Nunc Pro Tunc, Docket No. 153, dismissing the instant case with prejudice, on the following grounds: (a) the motion for summary judgement was unopposed because there were other motions pending before the court; (b) the Court “has overlooked the allegations of the complaint and the second amended complaint which establish that all claims made are not time barred”. See Docket No. 154, at page 10.

Defendants Jaime Muñiz Gonzalez, José Figueroa Sancha, Pedro Toledo, Benjamín Rodríguez, José Madera Casiano and Jaime Muñiz González (“Defendants”) filed their response opposing Rodríguez' reconsideration request on November 9, 2012, Docket No. 158. Generally, Defendants opposed all the arguments raised by the Plaintiffs on the grounds that: (a) Plaintiffs failed to show that indeed Rodriguez filed a claim on March 8, 2008 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) as there is no supporting evidence on the record to support Plaintiff's allegation; (b) Plaintiffs' arguments are merely a rehash of the allegations filed in the complaint and the amended complaint and (c) Plaintiffs' arguments failed to meet motion for reconsideration standard.

On November 20, 2012 Plaintiffs filed its Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration, Docket No. 161. In sum, Plaintiffs reiterates the same arguments already stated in its motion for reconsideration, Docket No. 154. Plaintiffs allege that the Court was misinformed when the Defendants stated that co-defendant Jaime Muñiz González “did not have any personal contact with co-plaintiff Rodriguez after February 25, 2008” and that he “did not commit any other act of sexual harassment against plaintiff”. See Docket No. 161, at page 2. Plaintiffs also submit documents that were already part of the record to restate Rodríguez' original argument that the complaint was “properly and timely filed”. Id. Plaintiffs further allege that the basis used by this Court to determine the time and date constraints are not supported by the record and by the facts declared in both the original and amended complaint. Id. at page 10.

On November 29, 2012, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike Reply to Response in Opposition. See Docket No. 162. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs have just (a) “rehashed and repeated the same arguments that they previously made in part B of their motion for reconsideration” and (b) the reply was filed “with several documents in the Spanish language for which no leave was requested or an English translation was submitted”. Id. at page 2. Hence, Defendants request that the motion should be stricken from the record since a “reply brief is not a proper vehicle to re-hash old arguments that have been made before”. Id. The Court denies the motion for reconsideration and briefly explains the reasoning of the Court's determination.

Applicable Law and Discussion The motion for reconsideration standard

Depending on the time that a Motion for reconsideration is served, it is generally considered either under Rules 59 or 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed.R.Civ.P.”), Pérez–Pérez v. Popular Leasing Rental, Inc., 993 F.2d 281, 284 (1st Cir.1993). It is settled that “[a] motion for reconsideration ‘does not provide

...