Torrente-Leyva v. Capitol Security Police, Inc.

Filing 37

ORDER granting 33 Motion for Reconsideration re 32 Opinion and Order, filed by Capitol Security Police, Inc. Signed by Judge Jose A Fuste on 12/13/11. (su)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

JUAN CARLOS TORRENTE-LEYVA,
Plaintiff
v.

CIVIL NO. 10-1550 (JAF/JP)

CAPITOL SECURITY POLICE, INC.,
Defendant

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Capitol Security Police, Inc.’s
(“Capitol Security”) motion for reconsideration of this Court’s
opinion

and

order.

(Docket

No.

33.)

For

the

reasons

herein,

Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.
Defendant previously moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim under
the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, on
the ground that, among other things, Plaintiff failed to file his
charge with the Puerto Rico Anti-Discrimination Unit (“ADU”) within
the 300 day limitations period provided in Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. Defendant argues that, while
Plaintiff argued that the correct date of his termination was in June
2008 and not March 25, 2008, in Plaintiff’s ADU complaint, he
identified March 25, 2008 as the date of the adverse action.
Moreover, Defendant argues that this Court should take notice of the
fact that prior to filing this complaint, on April 23, 2010,

CIVIL NO. 10-1550(JAF/JP)

-2-

Plaintiff filed another complaint against Defendant based on the same
cause of action but asserting a claim under the Family Medical Care
and Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2615, and, in that complaint,
Plaintiff alleged that he was terminated on March 25, 2008. (Docket
No. 33-4.) In that case, Case No. 3:10-cv-1340(SEC), Judge Salvador
E. Casellas entered an opinion on January 18, 2011, dismissing
Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) because Plaintiff failed to state an FMLA claim and because
Plaintiff did not file within the limitations period. (Id.) After
considering Defendant’s arguments in its motion for reconsideration,
the Court agrees with Defendant that in determining whether Plaintiff
filed this complaint within the limitations period, the date March
25, 2008 should be controlling. As such, because Plaintiff filed his
ADU charge on March 19, 2009, he failed to file within the 300 day
limitations period.
We note that Defendant waited almost a year to bring the case
that was before Judge Casellas to our attention. Considering the
limited time and resources of all parties involved, including this
Court,

Defendant

should

have

considered

filing

a

motion

to

consolidate the cases or a motion to dismiss on the basis of res
judicata.1

1

Federal claim preclusion law bars a plaintiff from litigating claims in
a subsequent action that could have been, but were not, litigated in an earlier
suit. Airframe Sys., Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 601 F.3d 9, 14 (1st Cir. 2010). “To

CIVIL NO. 10-1550(JAF/JP)

-3-

In conclusion, we dismiss Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant
for failure to file within the limitations period. The Court will
enter

a

final

judgment

dismissing

Plaintiff’s

complaint

with

prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 13th day of December, 2011.
s/José Antonio Fusté
JOSÉ ANTONIO FUSTÉ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

preclude parties from contesting matters that they have had a full and fair
opportunity to litigate protects their adversaries from the expense and vexation
of attending multiple lawsuits, conserves judicial resources and fosters reliance
on judicial action by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent decisions.”
Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 154 (1979). Instead, Defendant now moves
the Court for leave to file a motion to dismiss on the ground that Plaintiff’s
allegations are insufficient to state an ADA claim. (Docket No. 34.) In light of
this order, we FIND AS MOOT Defendant’s motion.