Nazario-Lugo v. Caribevision Holdings, Inc.

Filing 54

ORDER denying 49 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Jose A Fuste on 5/17/2010. (mrj)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT COURT D IS T R IC T OF PUERTO RICO M A Y D A NAZARIO-LUGO, Plaintiff, v. C A R IB E V IS IO N HOLDINGS, INC., D e f e n d a n t.

C i v il No. 09-2262 (JAF)

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

ORDER O n April 15, 2010, we issued an Opinion and Order dismissing Plaintiff's case without p re j u d i c e for prudential considerations under Colorado River Water Conservation District v. U n ite d States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), and its progeny. (Docket No. 47.) Plaintiff moved to re c o n s id e r on April 22 (Docket No. 49), and Defendant opposed on May 10 (Docket No. 50). B e c au s e Plaintiff filed her motion within twenty-eight days of the issuance of the O p in io n and Order, we construe her motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See F ed . R. Civ. P. 59(e). "Motions under Rule 59(e) must either clearly establish a manifest error o f law or must present newly discovered evidence." FDIC v. World Univ., Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 1 6 (1st Cir. 1992). Parties may not "introduce new evidence or advance arguments that could a n d should have been presented to the district court prior to the judgment." Aybar v. C ris p in -R e ye s , 118 F.3d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1997).

Civil No. 09-2262 (JAF) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

-2 -

F o r the most part, Plaintiff's brief reiterates issues that we previously considered and re je c te d in our Opinion and Order. (See Docket Nos. 47; 49.) These contentions present no m a n if e st errors of law. (See id.) Furthermore, Plaintiff belatedly references matters pending b ef o re the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance in a parallel proceeding to challenge our e v a lu a tio n of the relative progress of the two cases. (Docket No. 49.) Such evidence is not n e w ; Plaintiff was on notice that Defendant sought dismissal on the basis of abstention doctrine, a n d Plaintiff could have presented these matters before we issued our Opinion and Order. (See D o ck et No. 16.) W e , nevertheless, take this opportunity to clarify one point of contention. Plaintiff a s s e rts that the parallel Commonwealth case cannot accord her complete relief and that she is n o t required to file compulsory counterclaims in that suit. (Docket No. 49.) In making this a r g u m e n t , Plaintiff bifurcates her case into amounts due for past performance and amounts o w ed under a specific clause for termination for "good reason," maintaining that only the former c la im is pending before the Puerto Rico court. (Id.) We see no fundamental distinction between th e two causes of action as both depend on the interpretation of the same labor contract and a ss e ss m e n t of the parties' performance pursuant to that agreement. (See Docket No. 47.) Both c la im s arise from the same instrument and, hence, the same "transaction or occurrence" as c o n te m p la te d in the Puerto Rico procedural rule for compulsory counterclaims, 32 L.P.R.A. A p p . III R. 11.1 (2000). Furthermore, even if Plaintiff's claim under the contractual clause is

Civil No. 09-2262 (JAF) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

-3 -

n o t a compulsory counterclaim, Commonwealth rules provide for permissive counterclaims in th e parallel case. See id. R. 11.2. Therefore, Plaintiff has a fair opportunity to obtain full relief a g a in s t Defendant in the parallel case even if she elects not to pursue it. We reiterate that the e q u itie s in this case and the judicial policy of comity favor abstention in deference to the C o m m o n w ea lth proceedings. (See Docket No. 47.) A c c o rd in g ly, we hereby DENY Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 49). I T IS SO ORDERED. S a n Juan, Puerto Rico, this 17 th day of May, 2010. s / José Antonio Fusté J O S E ANTONIO FUSTE C h ie f U.S. District Judge