College of Dental Surgeons of Puerto Rico v. Triple S Management Inc. et al

Filing 350

ORDER denying 288 Motion to Set Aside 278 OPINION AND ORDER, filed by Edna Hernandez-Arroyo on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Jose A Fuste on 5/2/2012. (mrj)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
COLLEGE OF DENTAL SURGEONS OF
PUERTO RICO, et al.,

5

Plaintiffs,

6

Civil No. 09-1209 (JAF)

v.

7
8

9

TRIPLE S MANAGEMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

10

Pending before this court is a motion requesting relief filed by Plaintiffs, the College

11

of Dental Surgeons of Puerto Rico and ten of its members as class representatives. (Docket

12

No. 288.) Plaintiffs move for relief from our Opinion and Order of August 31, 2011 (Docket

13

No. 278). In that Order, we dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ claims except for their contract claims

14

under Puerto Rico law. (Id. at 16–17.) We also compelled co-plaintiffs Dr. Noel Aymat,

15

Dr. Angel Robles, and Dr. Pedro Chéverez to submit their claims against codefendant

16

Humana to arbitration. (Id. at 16.) A fuller summary of the facts and our analysis may be

17

found in our earlier Opinion and Order. (Id.) Codefendants oppose Plaintiffs’ motion,

Civil No. 09-1209 (JAF)

-2-

1

(Docket Nos. 299; 307; 313; 314), and Plaintiffs reply (Docket Nos. 307–1; 342).1 After

2

careful review of the parties’ arguments, we deny Plaintiffs’ motion for relief.

3

Plaintiffs’ motion fails to cite any rule or law under which they seek relief. (Docket

4

No. 288.) Codefendants CGLIC and MetLife construe Plaintiffs’ motion as one brought

5

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), while Humana construes it as one brought

6

under Rule 60(b)(6). (Docket No. 307 at 1–2; 313 at 5.) The language of Plaintiffs’ motion,

7

requesting “relief from order,” tracks the language of Federal Rule 60(b). See Fed. R. Civ.

8

P. 60(b) (entitled “Relief from a Judgment or Order”). Plaintiffs’ reply contends that the

9

motion complies with the requirements of Rule 60(b)(6), without mentioning Rule 59(e) at

10

all. (Docket No. 342 at 3.) In a spirit of caution, therefore, we consider Plaintiffs’ motion

11

under both Rules, and find that it fails according to either.

12

First, a party seeking relief under Federal Rule 60(b)(6) must demonstrate

13

“exceptional circumstances justifying extraordinary relief” for relief to be granted. In re La

14

Fata, 483 F.3d 13, 24 (1st Cir. 2007) (quoting Ahmed v. Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886, 891 (1st

15

Cir. 1997)). Plaintiffs do not even state what “exceptional circumstances” they believe

1

Separate opposition briefs were filed by codefendants MMM Healthcare, Inc. and Preferred Medicare
Choice, Inc. (Docket No. 299); Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (“CGLI”) and Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (“MetLife”) (Docket No. 307); and Humana (Docket No. 313). Codefendants Triple-S, Inc.,
Triple-C, Inc., and Triple-S Management, Inc. (collectively “Triple-S”); American Health, Inc.; Cruz Azul de
PR, Inc.; MCS Advantage, Inc.; MCS Management Options, Inc.; Medical Card Systems Inc.; Mennonite
General Hospital, Inc.; MAPFRE Life Insurance Company; Asociación de Compañías de Seguros de Puerto
Rico, Inc.; First Medical Health Plan, Inc.; International Medical Card, Inc.; Auxilio Platino, Inc.; Cooperativa
de Seguros de Vida de Puerto Rico, and Delta Dental of Puerto Rico, Inc., together file an opposition brief.
(Docket No. 314).

Civil No. 09-1209 (JAF)

-3-

1

justify the relief they seek. (See Docket Nos. 288; 342.) Nor do we find any exceptional

2

circumstances to warrant such extraordinary relief. Rather, Plaintiffs advance a commonplace

3

argument that this court made a mistake of law. (Docket Nos. 288; 342.) Plaintiffs’ main

4

argument seems to be that our Order dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims was based on an

5

“erroneous interpretation” of the relevant legal concepts. (Docket No. 288 at 2.)

6

In this circuit, “a motion asking ‘the court to modify its earlier disposition of a case

7

because of an allegedly erroneous legal result is brought under [Rule] 59(e)’” of the Federal

8

Rules of Civil Procedure. Cahoon v. Shelton, 647 F.3d 18, 29 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting In re

9

Sun Pipe Line Co., 831 F.2d 22, 24 (1st Cir. 1987)). First Circuit case law “generally

10

offer[s] three grounds for a valid Rule 59(e) motion: An ‘intervening change’ in the

11

controlling law, a clear legal error, or newly-discovered evidence.”2 Soto-Padró v. Pub.

12

Bldgs. Auth., No. 10-2413, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5144, at *21 (1st Cir. Mar. 12, 2012)

13

(quoting Morán Vega v. Cruz Burgos, 537 F.3d 14, 18 (1st Cir. 2008)). The “cases tell us

14

that a party cannot use a Rule 59(e) motion to rehash arguments previously rejected or to

15

raise ones that could, and should, have been made before judgment issued.” Id. (internal

16

quotation marks and citations omitted). Indeed, the First Circuit has “emphasized that Rule

17

59(e) ‘does not provide a vehicle for a party to undo its own procedural failures, and it

2

The First Circuit has also mentioned prevention of “manifest injustice” as another narrow ground
for granting a Rule 59(e) motion. Marie v. Allied Home Mortg. Corp., 402 F.3d 1, 7 n.2 (1st Cir. 2005)
(citing 11 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure
§ 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995)).

Civil No. 09-1209 (JAF)

-4-

1

certainly does not allow a party to introduce new evidence or advance arguments that could

2

and should have been presented to the district court prior to the judgment.’” Crawford v.

3

Clarke, 578 F.3d 39, 44 (1st Cir. 2009) (quoting Aybar v. Crispin Reyes, 118 F.3d 10, 16 (1st

4

Cir. 1997)).

5

Plaintiffs’ motion can be broken down into three parts. First, Plaintiffs argue that this

6

court should not have dismissed their claims under Puerto Rico’s Act Against Organized

7

Crime and Money Laundering (“OCML”), 25 L.P.R.A. §§ 971–971s (2008). (Docket

8

Nos. 288 at 3–9; 342 at 3–12.) Second, Plaintiffs argue that we should not have dismissed

9

their claims under certain tort and contract provisions of Puerto Rico’s Civil Code, 31

10

L.P.R.A. §§ 3373, 5141, 5142 (2008). (Docket No. 288 at 12–13.) Finally, co-plaintiffs

11

Dr. Aymat, Dr. Chéverez, and Dr. Robles argue that they are not bound by the arbitration

12

clauses in their contracts with Humana. (Docket No. 288 at 13–15.) We reject each

13

argument.

14

Regarding the OCML, Plaintiffs argue that this court “failed to consider various

15

allegations of illegal activity,” and that our ruling was based on an “erroneous and restrictive

16

interpretation” of the legal concepts involved. (Docket No. 288 at 2.) Neither argument is

17

persuasive. We agree with codefendants CGLIF and MetLife that “every authority plaintiffs

18

now cite and every argument they now make could have been made in their original

Civil No. 09-1209 (JAF)

-5-

1

opposition brief.”3 (Docket No. 307 at 3.) Plaintiffs failed to do so. (See Docket No. 236.)

2

This is not the time for Plaintiffs to raise arguments that “could, and should, have been made

3

before judgment issued.” Morán Vega, 537 F.3d at 18 n.2 (1st Cir. 2008)).

4

Plaintiffs’ challenges to our dismissal of their tort and contract claims under §§ 3373

5

and 5141 suffer from the same defect. Again, we agree with codefendants MetLife and

6

CGLIF that every argument Plaintiffs now raise could have been raised previously. (Docket

7

No. 307 at 7–11.) We also reject co-plaintiffs’ arguments that they should not be compelled

8

to arbitrate their claims against codefendant Humana. (Docket No. 288 at 13–15.) We have

9

already considered, and rejected, two of the arguments co-plaintiffs present in their current

10

motion.4 Co-plaintiffs cannot use this motion to “rehash arguments previously rejected” by

11

this court. Soto-Padró, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5144, at *21. Nor are we persuaded by co-

12

plaintiffs’ arguments that their claims do not arise out of their dental services provider

13

agreements with Humana. We reiterate that contract claims are the only claims remaining

14

after our earlier Order. (Docket No. 278.)

15

Having considered all of Plaintiffs’ arguments, we find that none meets any of the

16

grounds for relief under Rule 59(e). Soto-Padró, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5144, at *21.

17

Plaintiffs have simply failed to demonstrate a clear legal error, an intervening change in

3

4

Codefendant Humana makes the same argument. (Docket No. 313 at 7–10.)

Plaintiffs have already argued that their status as class representatives and their conspiracy
allegations somehow take their claims out of their arbitration agreements. (See Docket No. 234 at 3–10.)

Civil No. 09-1209 (JAF)

-6-

1

controlling law, or newly-discovered evidence.5 Id. For the foregoing reasons, we hereby

2

DENY Plaintiffs’ motion requesting relief. (Docket No. 288.)

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 2nd day of May, 2012.
s/José Antonio Fusté
JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE
United States District Judge

5
6
7

5

Nor have Plaintiffs persuaded us that relief is necessary to prevent any “manifest injustice.” Allied
Home Mortg. Corp., 402 F.3d at 7 n.2 (1st Cir. 2005).