Jimenez-Gonzalez et al v. Alvarez-Rubio et al

Filing 143

ORDER denying 136 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Marcos E. Lopez on 9/21/2012. (SB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
DÁLIX M. JIMÉNEZ GONZÁLEZ, et. al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CIVIL NO.: 09-1656 (MEL)

ZOIMÉ ÁLVAREZ RUBIO, et. al.,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is a motion for reconsideration of this court’s opinion and order
of February 8, 2010 (Docket No. 40), filed by former plaintiffs Dálix Jiménez González, Raúl
Méndez Méndez, Diego Aldebol Vargas, Andrés Pérez Santos, and Irene Iturrino Negrón on
January 10, 2012. Docket No. 136. The motion is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e), which allows a motion to alter or amend a judgment to be filed no later than
twenty-eight days after the entry of judgment. Partial judgment on the aforementioned former
plaintiffs’ claims was entered on February 9, 2010, the day after the opinion and order that
granted defendants’ motion to dismiss as to all of their claims. Docket No. 41. Accordingly, the
motion for reconsideration is untimely and shall be denied.
The movants claim that the final judgment entered on December 13, 2011 “includes the
dismissal of the instant plaintiffs.” Docket No. 136 at p. 1; see Docket No. 127. This contention
is erroneous.

The December 13, 2011 judgment was entered after the court had granted

defendants’ motion for summary judgment on November 18, 2011. That motion had requested
summary judgment on the remaining claims of the plaintiffs that had remained in the action after

the motion to dismiss was granted on February 8, 2010. Docket No. 126.1 Therefore, the
judgment entered pursuant to that opinion and order referred only to those plaintiffs.
When the February 2010 motion to dismiss was granted, and partial judgment entered as
to the above-named former plaintiffs, they ceased to be parties to this case. Of course, once a
plaintiff is dismissed from a case, she is no longer a plaintiff. Indeed the court’s docket reflects
that the above-named movants were terminated on February 9, 2010, the day that judgment was
entered as to all of their claims. Therefore, when judgment was entered on December 13, 2011
dismissing “all plaintiffs’ causes of action,” that language clearly referred only to those
individuals who were, at that time, plaintiffs in the case. Obviously, this did not include movants
as they had ceased to be plaintiffs nearly two years earlier. Movants had their opportunity to
challenge the court’s dismissal of their claims when they filed their first motion for
reconsideration of the February 2010 opinion and order on the motion to dismiss. See Docket
No. 45. That motion was denied and the instant motion is an unjustified attempt to re-litigate the
same arguments for a third time.

Accordingly, the pending motion for reconsideration is

DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 21st day of September, 2012.
s/Marcos E. López
U.S. Magistrate Judge

1

Those plaintiffs were Julio Rodríguez Méndez, David Rivera Arce, Edwin Valentín Hernández, Elvin Díaz
Afanador, and Linette Rivera Alicea. See Docket No. 40. On August 31, 2011, however, Linette Rivera Alicea
moved to voluntarily dismiss her claims against all defendants. Docket No. 108.
2