Simmon-Roman et al v. ABC Insurance Company et al
Filing
59
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Urgent Notice of Appearance and Motion for Reconsideration at Docket No. 55 . Signed by Judge Raul M. Arias-Marxuach on 10/15/2020. (mrr)
Case 3:17-cv-01180-RAM Document 59 Filed 10/15/20 Page 1 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
RICHARD SIMMON-ROMAN, et al
Plaintiffs
CIVIL NO. 17-1180(RAM)
v.
ABC INSURANCE COMPANY, et al
Defendants
OPINION AND ORDER
RAÚL M. ARIAS-MARXUACH, U.S. District Judge
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Urgent Notice of
Appearance and Motion for Reconsideration. (Docket No. 55). For
the
reasons
discussed
below,
Plaintiffs
request
for
reconsideration at Docket No. 55 is DENIED.
I.
BACKGROUND
On June 11, 2020, Plaintiffs’ attorney Michelle M. SilvaMarrero filed a Motion to Withdraw Legal Representation. (Docket
No. 38). The Court held said motion in abeyance and granted
Plaintiffs until July 10, 2020 to appoint new counsel and for the
latter to enter an appearance. (Docket No. 39). Subsequently, the
Court granted Plaintiffs extensions of time to file their new
attorney’s notice of appearance. (Docket Nos. 40 and 48).
On September 3, 2020, attorney Fredeswin Perez-Caballero
(“Perez-Caballero”) filed a motion informing the court that he had
Case 3:17-cv-01180-RAM Document 59 Filed 10/15/20 Page 2 of 7
Civil No. 17-1180(RAM)
2
been contacted by Plaintiffs, and was inclined to accept being
retained, but wanted more time to review the case file before
deciding. (Docket No. 51 ¶¶ 2-3). Therefore, Mr. Perez-Caballero
“request[ed] an additional term until October 5, 2020 to announce
legal representation. The ample term is requested in the event I
am unable to appear, so they have sufficient time to secure
representation.” Id. ¶ 4. The Court granted this request but
notified
Plaintiffs
that:
“[n]o
further
extensions
shall
be
granted. If Plaintiffs’ new attorney does not enter an appearance
by 10/5/2020, the Court will dismiss the case without prejudice.”
(Docket No. 52). (emphasis added).
Plaintiffs’ new legal counsel did not file a notice of
appearance
on
October
5,
2020,
as
ordered
by
the
Court.
Accordingly, on October 6, 2020, the Court dismissed the case
without prejudice. (Docket No. 53). That same day, Plaintiffs,
through
attorney
Perez-Caballero,
filed
an
Urgent
Notice
of
Appearance and Motion for Reconsideration stating that PerezCaballero accepted to represent Plaintiffs but had “mistakenly
entered into his calendar 10/10/2020 as the deadline to announce
legal representation.” (Docket No. 55 ¶¶ 3-4). The Court ordered
Defendants to respond. (Docket No. 56). On October 13, 2020,
Defendants filed a Motion in Compliance with Order alleging that
Plaintiffs have not justified their failure to comply with the
Case 3:17-cv-01180-RAM Document 59 Filed 10/15/20 Page 3 of 7
Civil No. 17-1180(RAM)
3
Court’s orders or to diligently prosecute their claims.
(Docket
No. 57).
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B)
Generally, litigants must show good cause when seeking an
extension of a court deadline. In the ordinary course, a litigant
who seeks an extension of time must show good cause for the desired
extension.
Rivera-Almodovar
Comunitario,
Inc.,
730
F.3d
v.
23,
Instituto
26
(1st
Cir.
Socioeconomico
2013)
(citing
Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)). When the deadline in question has expired,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B) requires more, namely: the litigant
must show that their “failure to request an extension in a timeous
manner
constitutes
excusable
neglect.”
Id.
“In
federal
civil
procedure, “excusable neglect” is a term of art.” Id.
When
determining
whether
a
party’s
actions
constitute
excusable neglect, courts must take into account “all relevant
circumstances surrounding the party’s omission” and specifically
analyze the following factors: “the danger of prejudice to the
[opposing party], the length of the delay and its potential impact
on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including
whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and
whether
the
movant
acted
in
good
faith.”
Pioneer
Investment
Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S.
380, 395, (1993). See also Tubens v. Doe, 2020 WL 5834736, at *3
Case 3:17-cv-01180-RAM Document 59 Filed 10/15/20 Page 4 of 7
Civil No. 17-1180(RAM)
4
(1st Cir. 2020) (applying Pioneer to cases regarding excusable
neglect
in
the
context
of
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
6(b)(1)(B)
controversies). The First Circuit has held that although each of
the four factors “should be weighed, there is ultimately a thumb
on the scale because ‘[w]ithin the constellation of relevant
factors, the most important is the reason for the particular
oversight.’” Skrabec v. Town of N. Attleboro, 878 F.3d 5, 9 (1st
Cir. 2017) (quoting Nansamba v. N. Shore Med. Ctr., Inc., 727 F.3d
33, 38-39 (1st Cir. 2013)) (emphasis added).
B. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for the
filing of motions for reconsideration. A motion that asks “the
court to modify its earlier disposition of a case because of an
allegedly erroneous legal result is brought under Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e).” Marie v. Allied Home Mortg. Corp., 402 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir.
2005). See also United States v. Pérez-Greaux, 382 F.Supp.3d 177,
178 (D.P.R. 2019). The United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit (“First Circuit”) has held that altering or amending a
judgment
is
“an
extraordinary
remedy
which
should
be
used
sparingly.” United States ex rel. Ge v. Takeda Pharm. Co., 737
F.3d
116,
127
(1st
Cir.
2013)
(internal
quotation
omitted).
Consequently, the decision to deny a Rule 59(e) motion is within
the sound discretion of the district court. See McCarthy v. Manson,
714 F.2d 234, 237 (2d Cir. 1983).
Case 3:17-cv-01180-RAM Document 59 Filed 10/15/20 Page 5 of 7
Civil No. 17-1180(RAM)
5
Thus, a district court may grant reconsideration only if there
is a “manifest error of law, [...] newly discovered evidence, or
in certain other narrow situations [such as a change in controlling
law].” United States v. Peña-Fernández, 394 F.Supp.3d 205, 207
(D.P.R. 2019) (quoting Biltcliffe v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 772 F.3d
925, 930 (1st Cir. 2014)). The moving party bears the burden of
proving that one of these three conditions exist to warrant
reconsideration. See Sutherland v. Ernst & Young LLP, 847 F. Supp.
2d 528, 531 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
III. ANALYSIS
In the case at bar, Plaintiffs have not met their burden under
Rule 6 or Rule 59 of Federal Civil Procedure.
Specifically,
Plaintiffs’ two-page Urgent Notice of Appearance and Motion for
Reconsideration does not address (1) the concept of excusable
neglect nor (2) any grounds on which reconsideration would be
proper. (Docket No. 55).
Plaintiffs
have
not
established
good
cause,
let
alone
excusable negligence to warrant an additional extension after the
time allotted by the Court had expired as required by Fed. R. Civ.
P. 6. Plaintiffs originally had until July 10, 2020 to enter their
new counsel’s notice of appearance. (Docket No. 39). The Court
subsequently granted three extensions, i.e. until October 5, 2020,
for Plaintiffs to comply. (Docket Nos. 40, 48, 52). In fact, the
Court’s first extension was granted sua sponte, after Plaintiffs
Case 3:17-cv-01180-RAM Document 59 Filed 10/15/20 Page 6 of 7
Civil No. 17-1180(RAM)
6
had failed to comply with the original July 10, 2020 deadline.
(Docket No. 40). Plaintiffs were repeatedly warned that failure to
enter a notice of appearance would warrant dismissal without
prejudice. (Docket Nos. 40, 48, 52). Plaintiffs’ only proffered
reason for their lack of compliance is that Mr. Perez-Caballero,
“mistakenly entered into his calendar 10/10/2020 as the deadline
to announce legal representation” instead of October 5, 2020.
(Docket No. 55 ¶¶ 3-4). Notably, Plaintiffs do not address the
other three factors established by the Supreme Court in Pioneer.
The
First
Circuit
has
repeatedly
held
that
an
attorney’s
“‘inattention or carelessness,’ without more, ‘normally does not
constitute excusable neglect.’” Rivera-Almodovar, 730 F.3d at 27
(quoting Dimmitt v. Ockenfels, 407 F.3d 21, 24 (1st Cir.2005)).
See also Stonkus v. City of Brockton Sch. Dep't, 322 F.3d 97, 101
(1st Cir. 2003) (“The stated reasons for the neglect—confusion
over
filing
dates
and
busyness—hold
little
water.”).
Thus,
Plaintiffs have not established that their failure to comply with
the Court’s deadline amounts to excusable neglect warranting an
extension.
Similarly, Plaintiffs have not articulated a manifest error
of law, newly discovered evidence, a change in controlling law or
any other circumstance that would warrant the extraordinary remedy
that is reconsideration. See Peña-Fernández, 394 F.Supp.3d 205;
Case 3:17-cv-01180-RAM Document 59 Filed 10/15/20 Page 7 of 7
Civil No. 17-1180(RAM)
7
Takeda Pharm. Co., 737 F.3d 127. Therefore, Plaintiffs have not
met their burden and reconsideration is not proper.
IV.
CONCLUSION
In light of the above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Urgent
Notice of Appearance and Motion for Reconsideration at Docket No.
55.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 15th day of October 2020.
S/ RAÚL M. ARIAS-MARXUACH
United States District Judge
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?