Rivera-Diaz et al v. Humana Insurance of Puerto Rico, Inc. et al

Filing 34

ORDER: Denying 33 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi on 3/5/2013. (TC)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

3
4
5

GIOVANNI RIVERA-DIAZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

6

Civil No. 12-1732 (GAG)

v.

7

HUMANA HEALTH PLANS OF PUERTO

8

RICO, INC., et al.,

9

Defendants.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Opinion and Order
Giovanni Rivera-Díaz (“Rivera-Díaz”), his wife, Ingrid Bazán Guzmán (“Bazán Guzmán”),
and the conjugal partnership composed between them1 filed a complaint against Caribbean
Temporary Services (“CTS”), Humana Health Plans of P.R., Inc. (“Humana”), and Solciré Cardona
(“Cardona”) in her personal capacity, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and
retaliation. The action is brought pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.; the Civil Rights
Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981a, 1983, and 1988; the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”),
42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.; and the Constitution of the United States of America. Plaintiff also
invokes this court’s supplemental jurisdiction to adjudicate claims pursuant to the Constitution of
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; Puerto Rico Law 100 of June 30, 1959 (“Law 100”), P.R. LAWS
ANN. tit. 29, §§ 146 et seq.; and Puerto Rico Act No. 80 of May 30, 1976 (“Law 80"), P.R. LAWS
ANN. tit. 29, §§ 185a et seq.
The court issued an Opinion and Order dismissing Rivera-Diaz’s claims for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be grated (Docket No. 31). Rivera-Diaz now seeks reconsideration
of said order alleging the court erred by not applying equitable tolling and by not interpreting Rivera-

25
26
27
28

1

Bazán Guzmán’s claims are derivative of Rivera-Díaz’s, therefore, the court will treat the
matter as if Rivera-Díaz were the sole plaintiff in the case.

1

Civil No. 12-1732 (GAG)

2

Diaz’s second EEOC filing as an administrative reconsideration request. The court DENIES

3

Rivera-Diaz’s motion for reconsideration.

2

4

I.

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

Metal Finishing Com. v. BarclaysAmerican/Commercial, Inc ., 899 F.2d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 1990).

Standard of Review

17

II.

18

In his opposition to Defendants motion to dismiss, Rivera-Diaz did not argue that equitable

19

tolling applied to his claims or that his second EEOC complaint should be considered a

20

reconsideration order to his original EEOC complaint. Rivera-Diaz merely argued his claims were

21

timely because he filed his judicial complaint within ninety days of receiving the second right to sue

22

letter. Therefore, Rivera-Diaz attempts to make these arguments for the first time in a motion for

23

reconsideration. “It is generally accepted that a party may not, on a motion for reconsideration,

24

advance a new argument that could (and should) have been presented prior to the district court's

25

original ruling.” Cochran v. Quest Software Inc., 328 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2003) (holding district

26

court did not abuse discretion in refusing to reconsider its decision based on novel arguments). It

27

is for this reason the court DENIES Rivera-Diaz’s motion for reconsideration.

28

III.

Discussion

Conclusion

1
2
3

Civil No. 12-1732 (GAG)

3

Pursuant to the opinion and analysis above, the court DENIES Rivera-Diaz’s motion for
reconsideration.

4
5

SO ORDERED.

6

In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 5th day of March 2013.

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