Martinez-Rivera et al v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico et al

Filing 58

ORDER: DENYING in part and REFERRING in part 57 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi on 12/1/2011. (TC)

1

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

2
3

EDNA MARTINEZ-RIVERA, et al.,

4

Plaintiffs,

5

v.

6
7

COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO
RICO, et al.,

8

Defendants.

Civil No. 11-1184 (GAG)

OPINION AND ORDER

9
10

Presently before the court is defendant Vocational Rehabilitation Administration’s

11

(“Defendant”) motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 57). For the following reasons the court

12

DENIES the motion for reconsideration as to the failure to join a necessary party and REFERS the

13

question of Eleventh Amendment immunity to Magistrate Judge McGiverin for Report and

14

Recommendation.

15

I.

16

Motions for reconsideration are generally considered under FED.R.CIV.P. 59 or 60,

17

depending on the time such motion is served. Perez-Perez v. Popular Leasing Rental, Inc., 993 F.2d

18

281, 284 (1st Cir. 1993). Whether under Rule 59 or Rule 60, a motion for reconsideration cannot

19

be used as a vehicle to relitigate matters already litigated and decided by the court.

20

Villanueva-Mendez v. Vazquez, 360 F.Supp. 2d 320, 322 (D.P.R. 2005). These motions are

21

entertained by courts if they seek to correct manifest errors of law or fact, present newly discovered

22

evidence, or when there is an intervening change in law. See Rivera Surillo & Co. v. Falconer Glass.

23

Indus. Inc., 37 F.3d 25, 29 (1st Cir. 1994) (citing F.D.I.C. Ins. Co. v. World University, Inc., 978

24

F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992); Cherena v. Coors Brewing Co., 20 F. Supp. 2d 282, 286 (D .P.R. 1998)).

25

Hence, this vehicle may not be used by the losing party “to repeat old arguments previously

26

considered and rejected, or to raise new legal theories that should have been raised earlier.”

27

National Metal Finishing Com. v. BarclaysAmerican/Commercial, Inc ., 899 F.2d 119, 123 (1st Cir.

28

1990).

Standard or Review

Civil No. 11-1184 (GAG)
1

II.

2

For the first time in this motion for reconsideration Defendant raises the issue of Eleventh

3

Amendment immunity and failure to join a necessary party. In Defendant’s motion to dismiss,

4

Defendant argued the claims were time barred due to the statute of limitations. (See Docket No. 23.)

5

Plaintiffs responded claiming the claims had been tolled due to administrative filings preceding the

6

present suit. (See Docket No. 34.) Defendant then submitted a reply brief to further explain why

7

Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed. Defendant failed, on two occasions, to raise the issues

8

presently raised in the motion for reconsideration. “It is generally accepted that a party may not,

9

on a motion for reconsideration, advance a new argument that could (and should) have been

10

presented prior to the district court's original ruling.” Cochran v. Quest Software Inc., 328 F.3d 1,

11

11 (1st Cir. 2003) (holding district court did not abuse discretion in refusing to reconsider its

12

decision based on novel arguments). It is for this reason the court DENIES Defendant’s motion for

13

reconsideration regarding the failure to join the Board of Restructuring and Fiscal Stabilization

14

(“JREF” for its Spanish acronym).

Discussion

15

However, the court notes the potential for wasted resources if the only surviving claim

16

continues, only to later be dismissed due to Eleventh Amendment immunity. It is in the trial court’s

17

discretion to allow consideration of the immunity defense because suit in violation of the Eleventh

18

Amendment would be a manifest error of law. Because the court has already referred the remaining

19

claim to Magistrate Judge McGiverin for a Report and Recommendation, the court finds the most

20

efficient solution is for Magistrate Judge McGiverin to incorporate an analysis of the Eleventh

21

Amendment within the Report and Recommendation. In doing so, Judge McGiverin will determine

22

if any prospective injunctive relief is warranted, or if the injunctive relief may include any other

23

retroactive remedy.

24

III.

25

Pursuant to the opinion and analysis above, the court DENIES Defendant’s motion for

26

reconsideration as to the non-joinder of JREF as a necessary party. The court REFERS the issue

Conclusion

27
28

2

Civil No. 11-1184 (GAG)
1

of Eleventh Amendment immunity to Magistrate Judge McGiverin for inclusion in the Report and

2

Recommendation.

3
4
5

SO ORDERED.

6

In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 1st day of December 2011.

7

s/Gustavo A. Gelpí

8

GUSTAVO A. GELPI
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3