Gomez - Cruz v. Fernandez - Pabellon et al
Filing
216
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPEAL denying 214 Motion for Reconsideration Signed by Judge John Woodcock, Jr on 05/02/2019. (cs)
Case 3:13-cv-01711-JAW Document 216 Filed 05/02/19 Page 1 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
CARLOS GÓMEZ-CRUZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MARTA E. FERNÁNDEZ-PABELLÓN
et al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:13-cv-01711-JAW
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPEAL
The Court denies defendants’ motion to reconsider its order denying an
extension of time to file a notice of appeal, as defendants failed to show that the Court
made a manifest error of law or a clearly unjust ruling and failed to present newly
discovered evidence.
I.
BACKGROUND
On January 23, 2019, the Defendants, after failing to timely file a notice of
appeal, moved for an extension of time to file the appeal. Mot. for Extension of Time
Until January 23, 2019 to File Tendered Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 206) (Defs.’ Mot.
for Extension of Time).
The Court denied the motion on March 12, 2019, after
determining that the Defendants failed to demonstrate either good cause or excusable
neglect pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5). Order on Mot. for
Extension of Time to File Appeal (ECF No. 213) (Order on Mot. for Extension of Time).
On March 15, 2019, the Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision.
Case 3:13-cv-01711-JAW Document 216 Filed 05/02/19 Page 2 of 8
Mot. for Recons. re Order on Mot. for Extension of Time (ECF No. 214) (Defs.’ Mot.).
The Plaintiffs opposed the motion on March 22, 2019. Resp. in Opp’n to Mot. for
Recons. (ECF No. 215) (Pls.’ Opp’n).
II.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
A.
Defendants’ Motion
The Defendants argue that the Mirpuri v. ACT Manufacturing, Inc., 212 F.3d
624, 630 (1st. Cir. 2000) case, which the Court discussed in the its order denying the
requested extension of time to file notice of appeal, is distinguishable because in
Mirpuri, the Court dismissed the pleading without prejudice, and because here,
unlike in Mirpuri, the case “presents a novel controversy of law . . . which the
Defendants could bring before the First Circuit.” Defs.’ Mot. at 2-3. The Defendants
further argue that the Court’s order denying the applicability of the automatic stay
under PROMESA and granting the Plaintiffs’ motion for reimbursement was unfair,
because in their view, ordering the “preferential payment in detriment of other
creditors—placed in the same position as the plaintiffs in this case—would be in
conflict with the remaining claims from all other creditors. . ..” Id. at 3.
B.
Plaintiffs’ Opposition
The Plaintiffs oppose the Defendant’s motion, stating that “[t]he Court
correctly determined that defendants’ sole, proffered excuse for neglecting to file their
notice of appeal within the 30-day limit under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) and 28 U.S.C. §
2107—inadvertence by counsel because she was busy preparing voir dire and jury
instructions—was insufficient to grant their motion for extension of time . . ..” Pls.’
2
Case 3:13-cv-01711-JAW Document 216 Filed 05/02/19 Page 3 of 8
Opp’n at 1. They contend that the Defendants’ motion merely “repeat[s] arguments
that the Court had the opportunity to consider already, and ultimately rejected.” Id.
The Plaintiffs cite this Court’s statement that “[a] Rule 59(e) motion is not a vehicle
to force the court to think twice; it is not an opportunity for the losing party simply
to press his unsuccessful arguments a second time in the hope that, by repetition, the
court will see them this way.” Id. at 3 (quoting Widi v. McNeil, No. 2:12-cv-00188JAW, 2014 WL 640286, at *1 (D. Me. Feb. 18, 2014)). Thus, a Rule 59(e) motion “is
normally not a promising vehicle for revisiting a party’s case and rearguing theories
previously advanced and rejected.” Id. (quoting Palmer v. Champion Mortg., 465 F.3d
24, 30 (1st Cir. 2006)).
According to the Plaintiffs, in addition to the fact that the Defendants’
arguments have already been rejected by the Court, they fail on their merits. First,
the Plaintiffs contend, “Defendants gloss over that the Court cited other First Circuit
cases [in addition to Mirpuri] holding that mere inadvertence by counsel is
insufficient to constitute excusable neglect.” Pls.’ Opp’n at 5 (citing Order on Mot. for
Extension of Time at 7 (citing Pinerso Schroeder v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 574 F.2d
1117, 1118 (1st Cir. 1978); de la Tore v. Continental Ins. Co., 15 F.3d 12, 15 (1st Cir.
1994); Sheedy v. Bankowski (In re Sheedy), 875 F.3d 740, 744 (1st Cir. 2017))). In
response to the Defendants’ argument that “this appeal is necessary being that it
touches upon a novel and transcendental issue regarding a collection effort by the
plaintiff of a partial amount of a settlement reached pre-petition, which is
automatically stayed through §§ 362 and 922 of the Bankruptcy code . . .”, id. (citing
3
Case 3:13-cv-01711-JAW Document 216 Filed 05/02/19 Page 4 of 8
Defs.’ Mot. at 9), the Plaintiffs note that “there is nothing in Fed. R. App. 4(a)(5) or 28
U.S.C. § 2107(c) to support the argument that the alleged importance or novelty of
the issues on appeal is a factor contributing to the excusable neglect standard.” Id.
at 6.
III.
DISCUSSION
A.
Legal Standard
Although the Defendants do not denominate a specific procedural rule under
which they seek reconsideration, they “ask[] the court to modify its earlier disposition
of [this] case because of an allegedly erroneous legal result . . ..” Appeal of Sun Pipe
Line Co., 831 F.2d 22, 24 (1st Cir. 1987) (citing Silk v. Sandoval, 435 F.2d 1266, 1267–
68 (1st Cir. 1971)). The Court, therefore, assumes that the Defendants are bringing
the motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Id. “[M]otions for
reconsideration are appropriate only in a limited number of circumstances: if the
moving party presents newly discovered evidence, if there has been an intervening
change in the law, or if the movant can demonstrate that the original decision was
based on a manifest error of law or was clearly unjust.” United States v. Allen, 573
F.3d 42, 53 (1st Cir. 2009). “A motion for reconsideration is not the venue to undo
procedural snafus or permit a party to advance arguments it should have developed
prior to judgment, Iverson v. City of Boston, 452 F.3d 94, 104 (1st Cir. 2006), nor is it
a mechanism to regurgitate ‘old arguments previously considered and rejected . . ..’”
Biltcliffe v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 772 F.3d 925, 930 (1st Cir. 2014) (quoting Nat'l Metal
Finishing Co., Inc. v. BarclaysAmerican/Commercial, Inc., 899 F.2d 119, 123 (1st Cir.
4
Case 3:13-cv-01711-JAW Document 216 Filed 05/02/19 Page 5 of 8
1990)). A district court has discretion to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration.
United States v. Celaya Valenzuela, 849 F.3d 477, 483 (1st Cir. 2017) (“The Court of
Appeals reviews the denial of a motion to reconsider for an abuse of discretion”).
B.
Analysis
The Defendants first argue that Mirpuri “is clearly distinguishable from the
instant case since: (1) the Court in the Mirpuri case dismissed it without prejudice,
so the plaintiffs could file their claim again with the appropriate pleadings; and (2)
the instant case, contrary to the Mirpuri case, presents a novel controversy of law . .
.”.
Defs.’ Mot. at 2 (citing Mirpuri, 212 F.3d at 630).
Whether the cases are
distinguishable is not pertinent, however, because in its order denying the
Defendant’s motion for an extension of time, the Court only cited Mirpuri for the
Court’s analysis of the relevant legal standard for excusable neglect. As noted by the
Court in its prior order, the standard outlined in Mirpuri is well-established in the
First Circuit. See Mirpuri, 212 F.3d at 630-31 (quoting Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v.
Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993)); see also Graphic Commc’ns Int’l
Union, Local 12-N v. Quebecor Printing Providence, Inc., 270 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001).
The application of this standard, not the facts underlying the court’s decision in
Mirpuri, was the basis for the Court’s conclusion that that the Defendants’ proffered
reason for failing to timely file does not meet the First Circuit’s definition of excusable
neglect pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5). Order on Mot. for
Extension of Time at 4-8. Although the Defendants attempt to distinguish the facts
of Mirpuri from those in the present case, they do not argue that the excusable neglect
5
Case 3:13-cv-01711-JAW Document 216 Filed 05/02/19 Page 6 of 8
standard outlined in the caselaw does not apply to this case, nor do they contend that
the Court misapplied those factors in its prior order. Therefore, the Defendants have
failed to demonstrate that the Court made a manifest error of law in concluding that
the Defendants “mere inadvertence” in failing to timely file was not sufficient to
warrant an extension of time under Rule 4(a)(5) and relevant case law.
As noted by the Plaintiffs, the Defendants offer no caselaw to support their
contention that a court should consider the novelty of the legal question at issue when
determining whether a failure to timely file constituted excusable neglect. Pls.’ Opp’n
at 3. Rather, as stated by the Court in its prior order, the four factors set forth in
Pioneer focus on the reason provided by the party for the delay and the potential
impact on the opposing party if the court were to grant an extension:
[A]n inquiring court must “take account of all relevant circumstances
surrounding the [movant’s] omission,” including “the danger of prejudice
to the [non-movant], the length of the delay and its potential impact on
judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it is
within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant
acted in good faith.
Order on Mot. for Extension of Time at 5 (citing Mirpuri, 212 F.3d at 630-31 (quoting
Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395)). The Court considered these factors and determined that
it “is simply unable to find that these circumstances present the ‘unique or
extraordinary circumstances’ that Rule 4(a)(5) requires.” Id. at 7 (citing Gochis v.
Allstate Ins. Co., 16 F.3d 12, 14 (1st Cir. 1994)). The Defendants’ argument that this
case presents “a novel controversy of law” and therefore deserves an extension of time
to file an appeal does not convince the Court that it erred in its original conclusion
6
Case 3:13-cv-01711-JAW Document 216 Filed 05/02/19 Page 7 of 8
that the Defendants failed to show excusable neglect or good cause as required by
Rule 4(a)(5).
Finally, the Defendants contend that the Court should reconsider its denial of
their motion for an extension of time because the Court’s original order for
reimbursement “plac[es] the plaintiffs in a better position than the other creditors,
thus, hindering their interests in the property of the estate subject to the bankruptcy
proceeding, possibly causing disruption and challenges to such action in the process.”
Defs.’ Mot. at 3. “A motion for reconsideration is not a means for the losing party to
rehash arguments previously considered and rejected.” Lakshman v. Univ. of Maine
Sys., 338 F. Supp. 2d 162, 164 (D. Me. 2004) (citing BarclaysAmerican/Commercial,
Inc., 899 F.2d at 123). The Defendants made the same argument in their motion for
reconsideration of the Court’s order regarding the automatic stay, and the Court
declined to reconsider its decision. Mot. for Reconsideration re Order at 20 (ECF No.
202). As such, the Court will not again consider the Defendants’ argument, and
declines to reiterate the basis of its order requiring the Defendants to reimburse Mr.
Gómez-Cruz here.
IV.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the Court made
an erroneous legal determination to warrant reconsideration of its March 12, 2019
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal, and the Court DENIES their
Motion for Reconsideration of Order in Docket Number 213 (ECF No. 214).
7
Case 3:13-cv-01711-JAW Document 216 Filed 05/02/19 Page 8 of 8
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 2nd day of May, 2019
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?