Jose et al v. University of Puerto Rico et al

Filing 62

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 60 MOTION for Reconsideration re 59 Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Jose A. Fuste on 09/29/2014.(mrj)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

1
2
3
4

JOSE L. MARRERO-RAMOS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 13-1076 (JAF)

v.
UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO, et al.,
Defendants.
5

OPINION AND ORDER

6
7

Plaintiff José L. Marrero-Ramos (“Marrero-Ramos” or “Plaintiff”)1 sued Defendants,

8

the University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez Campus (“UPR Mayagüez”); Miguel A. Muñoz

9

(“Muñoz); Jorge Rivera-Santos (“Rivera-Santos”); Lourdes Rosario (“Rosario”); and

10

Insurance Company XYZ (collectively “Defendants”) in diversity jurisdiction following a

11

workplace laboratory accident that caused Marrero-Ramos severe injuries. (Docket No. 1.)

12

On September 23, 2014, we granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that

13

the suit was barred both by Eleventh Amendment immunity and by the workers’

14

compensation scheme.

15

reconsideration. (Docket No. 60.)

(Docket No. 59.)

The same day, Plaintiff filed a motion for

16

First, Plaintiff argues that “Plaintiff, due to an oversight, omitted to include” any

17

admissions, denials, or qualifications to Defendants’ statements of facts in their papers

18

opposing summary judgment. (Docket No. 60.) Failure on such a fundamental duty cannot

19

be waived away as “an oversight.” Plaintiff also respectfully requests that this court clarify

1

This case originally included two other plaintiffs, but they were dismissed with prejudice on September 4,
2014. (Docket No. 46.)

Civil No. 13-1076 (JAF)

-2-

1

whether it acknowledged the existence of [‘Plaintiffs Statement of Uncontested facts’] and

2

whether it took them into account to support its conclusion that the exception to the employer

3

immunity was not applicable in this case. (Docket No. 60 at 2.) The court read and took into

4

account all the materials that were submitted in the summary judgment papers, including the

5

Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts.

6

Second, Plaintiff addresses the issue of diversity. (Docket No. 60 at 2.) This is

7

irrelevant, given that our opinion found the issue to be mooted by the voluntary dismissal of

8

two non-diverse plaintiffs. (Docket No. 59 at 4.)

9
10

Third, Plaintiff alleges that sovereign immunity does not extend to Muñoz, RiveraSantos, and Rosario. (Docket No. 60 at 2.) He alleges that:
Even if the court does not admit the omitted denial attached to
this Motion – both the complaint – which does not refer to these
co-defendants as sued in their official capacity and several
Plaintiffs’ uncontested facts show the involvement of codefendants in their personal capacity.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

(Docket No. 60 at 2.) The denial attached to this motion simply denies that these parties are

18

sued in their official capacities. (Docket No. 60-1.) The complaint made no mention of

19

whether they are sued in their official or personal capacities.

20

mentioned the job title of each, and that they were “of legal age, married, and resident of

21

[Puerto Rico].” (Docket No. 1 at 2.) The complaint also mentioned that Rosario was

22

Marrero’s supervisor. (Docket No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff does not explain how any of the

23

“uncontested facts” show Defendants were sued in their personal capacity. (See Docket No.

24

60 at 2.) “Personal-capacity suits seek to impose personal liability upon a government

25

official for actions he takes under color of state law [....] Official-capacity suits, in contrast

26

‘generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an

The complaint simply

Civil No. 13-1076 (JAF)

-3-

1

officer is an agent.’”

2

“defendants sued only in their official capacities in the original complaint cannot be expected

3

to be on notice of the very different issues raised by claims against them in their personal

4

capacities.” Rodriguez-Garcia v. Municipality of Caguas, 354 F.3d 91, 100 (1st Cir. 2004).

5

We find analogous issues of inadequate notice for plaintiffs who are sued along with their

6

employer and who are not notified that they are sued in anything other than their official

7

capacities. Regardless, we already held in our opinion that the suit must be dismissed under

8

the workmen’s compensation scheme. (Docket No. 59.) Therefore, the issue is moot.

Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985).

In general,

9

Fourth, Plaintiff alleges, without further explanation, that “the facts contained in

10

Plaintiff’s SUF – which are uncontested, support a conclusion that the exception to the

11

employer immunity as construed by the PR Supreme Court is applicable to the present case.”

12

(Docket No. 60 at 2) (emphasis in original). We clearly explained in our original opinion

13

why this is not the case. (See Docket No. 59.)

14

III.

15

Conclusion

16
17

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 60) is
DENIED.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 29th day of September, 2014.

20
21
22

S/José Antonio Fusté
JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE