Franco-Figueroa et al v. State Insurance Fund et al

Filing 80

ORDER denying 76 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Jose A Fuste on 5/16/2012. (mrj)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

1
2
3

MANUEL FRANCO FIGUEROA, et al.,

4

Plaintiffs,

5

Civil No. 11-1025 (JAF)

v.

6
7

8

STATE INSURANCE FUND, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

9

Pending before this court is a motion for reconsideration, filed by Defendants, the

10

State Insurance Fund, Zoimé Alvarez Rubio, and Saúl Rivera Rivera. (Docket No. 76.)

11

Defendants ask this court to amend or alter our Order of April 19, 2012, which denied

12

Defendants’ motion requesting abstention. (Docket Nos. 63; 71.) Plaintiffs oppose. (Docket

13

No. 77.) After careful review of the parties’ arguments, we deny Defendants’ motion.

14

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

15

No. 76.) Plaintiffs construe Defendants’ motion as one brought under Federal Rule of Civil

16

Procedure 59(e). (Docket No. 77.) Defendants’ motion repeatedly requests that we

17

“reconsider” our earlier Order. (Docket No. 76 at 1.)

18

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

19

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

Civil No. 11-1025 (JAF)

-2-

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

controlling law, a clear legal error, or newly-discovered evidence.”1 Soto-Padró v. Pub.

5

Bldgs. Auth., 675 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2012) (quoting Morán Vega v. Cruz Burgos, 537 F.3d

6

14, 18 (1st Cir. 2008)). The “cases tell us that a party cannot use a Rule 59(e) motion to

7

rehash arguments previously rejected or to raise ones that could, and should, have been made

8

before judgment issued.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Indeed, the

9

First Circuit has “emphasized that Rule 59(e) ‘does not provide a vehicle for a party to undo

10

its own procedural failures, and it certainly does not allow a party to introduce new evidence

11

or advance arguments that could and should have been presented to the district court prior

12

to the judgment.’” Crawford v. Clarke, 578 F.3d 39, 44 (1st Cir. 2009) (quoting Aybar v.

13

Crispin Reyes, 118 F.3d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1997)).

14

Defendants’ motion meets none of these criteria. The bulk of Defendants’ motion

15

recycles the same arguments made in Defendants’ original request for abstention. (Docket

16

Nos. 63; 76.) Defendants again stress that concerns for fairness, comity, and sound judicial

17

administration counsel in favor of abstention. (Docket No. 76.) We have already considered,

1

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. 11-1025 (JAF)

-3-

1

and rejected, such arguments. (Docket No. 71.) We reiterate that Defendants cannot use a

2

Rule 59(e) motion to “rehash arguments previously rejected. ” Soto-Padró, 675 F.3d at 9.

3

The one new argument in Defendants’ motion contends that abstention may be proper

4

even if the case does not fit into any of the “established doctrinal boxes.” (Docket No. 76

5

at 2.) In support of this argument, Defendants point us to Cruz v. Melecio, 204 F.3d 14 (1st

6

Cir. 2000). We decline to reconsider our earlier Order on this basis, noting that such

7

arguments “could, and should, have been made before judgment issued.” Soto-Padró, 675

8

F.3d at 9.

9
10

For the foregoing reasons, we hereby DENY Defendants’ motion for reconsideration.
(Docket No. 76.)

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 16th day of May, 2012.

13
14
15

s/José Antonio Fusté
JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE
United States District Judge