Johnson & Johnson International et al v. Puerto Rico Hospital Supply, Inc. et al
Filing
77
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re 63 Motion for Reconsideration. Johnson & Johnson International and Ethicon, Inc.'s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Judge Francisco A. Besosa on 10/26/2017. (brc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
JOHNSON & JOHNSON
INTERNATIONAL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil No. 17-1405 (FAB)
PUERTO RICO HOSPITAL
INC., et al.,
SUPPLY,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BESOSA, District Judge.
Before
the
Court
is
plaintiffs
Johnson
&
Johnson
International and Ethicon, Inc. (collectively, “J&JI”)’s motion
for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e).
(Docket No. 63.)
J&JI requests that the Court reconsider
its Opinion and Order compelling arbitration and staying all claims
pending the completion of arbitration.
See Docket No. 53.
J&JI
also seeks reconsideration of this Court’s Order denying J&JI’s
motion for provisional remedies.
See Docket No. 54.
Defendants
Puerto Rico Hospital Supply, Inc. (“PRHS”) and Customed, Inc.
(“Customed”) (collectively, “defendants”) opposed J&JI’s request,
Docket No. 66, J&JI replied, Docket No. 69, and defendants filed
a surreply.
See Docket No. 72.
For the reasons set forth below,
the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
I.
BACKGROUND
Civil No. 17-1405 (FAB)
2
On July 10, 2017, the Court entered an Opinion and Order
granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss
or stay proceedings and compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal
Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 3 and 4.
(Docket No. 53.)
The Court also denied J&JI’s motion for pre-judgment provisional
remedies.
(Docket No. 54.)
Now, J&JI requests that the Court reconsider these decisions.
(Docket No. 63.)
Namely, J&JI objects to the Court’s decision to
stay this case pending arbitration and the Court’s denial of
provisional remedies.
Id.
With respect to the Court’s decision
to stay the case, Docket No. 53, J&JI argues that:
(1) “None of
the decisive factors to favor a stay pending arbitration are
present
here
and,
given
the
fact-intensive
nature
of
Law
75
disputes, it is highly unlikely that the arbitration will shed any
light on this case; (2) The decision to stay is incompatible with
the
core
holding
by
the
Court
that
only
three
discrete
controversies are to be submitted to arbitration, none of which
are part of the Complaint; (3) The stay is contrary to the parties’
unequivocal contractual intention that none of the terms and
conditions
clause)
in
will
the
2005
interfere
Agreement
in
any
(including
way
with
the
its
arbitration
prior
existing
commercial relationships between the parties; and (4) No stay was
warranted given that Defendants abandoned their request to stay by
Civil No. 17-1405 (FAB)
3
failing to elaborate it in all their relevant filings.”
(Docket
No. 63 at p. 3.)
J&JI also asserts that the Court erred in its denial of J&JI’s
motion for pre-judgment provisional remedies.
J&JI maintains that:
See Docket No. 54.
(1) “A stay pending arbitration is not an
impediment for the Court to rule on requests for interim reliefs,
such as a request for provisional remedies;” (2) “the stay deprives
J&JI of a forum (judicial or otherwise) to resolve its request for
provisional remedies;” and (3) “The controversies to be submitted
to arbitration are so narrow that any interim relief to be awarded
by the arbitral forum will be minuscule and only related to the
$70,000 debt and the reduced number of products sold under the
2005 Agreement.”
II.
(Docket No. 63 at pp. 3-4.)
LEGAL STANDARD
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “do not specifically
provide for the filing of motions for reconsideration.”
Sanchez-
Perez v. Sanchez-Gonzalez, 717 F. Supp. 2d 187, 193-94 (D.P.R.
2010) (Besosa, J.) (quoting Sanchez-Medina v. UNICCO Serv. Co.,
265 F.R.D. 29, 32 (D.P.R. 2010)).
“[I]t is settled in this
circuit[, however,] that a motion which ask[s] 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)
Civil No. 17-1405 (FAB)
4
(quoting In re Sun Pipe Line Co., 831 F.2d 22, 24 (1st Cir. 1987));
see also Cent. Produce El Jibarito v. Luna Commercial Corp., 880
F. Supp. 2d 282, 284 (D.P.R. 2012) (Besosa, J.) (quoting same).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a district
court will alter its original order only if it “evidenced a
manifest error of law, if there is newly discovered evidence, or
in certain other narrow situations.”
Biltcliffe v. CitiMortgage,
Inc., 772 F.3d 925, 930 (1st Cir. 2014) (quoting Global Naps, Inc.
v. Verizon New England, Inc., 489 F.3d 13, 25 (1st Cir. 2007)).
A motion for reconsideration does “not provide a vehicle for a
party to undo its own procedural failures [or] allow a party [to]
advance arguments that could and should have been presented to the
district court prior to judgment.”
Iverson v. City of Bos., 452
F.3d 94, 104 (1st Cir. 2006) (citing Aybar v. Crispin–Reyes, 118
F.3d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1997)).
“Rule 59(e) does not exist to allow
parties a second chance to prevail on the merits . . . [and] is
not an avenue for litigants to reassert arguments and theories
that were previously rejected by the Court.”
In re Rosado, Bankr.
No. 09-01687, 2013 WL 1309412, at *1 (Bankr. D.P.R. Mar. 28, 2013)
(citing Harley–Davidson Motor Co. v. Bank of New England–Old
Colony, N.A., 897 F.2d 611, 616 (1st Cir. 1990)).
In deciding a motion for reconsideration, the reviewing court
has
considerable
discretion.
Venegas-Hernandez
v.
Sonolux
Civil No. 17-1405 (FAB)
5
Records, 370 F.3d 183, 190 (1st Cir. 2004).
“As a general rule,
motions for reconsideration should only be exceptionally granted.”
Villanueva-Mendez v. Nieves Vazquez, 360 F. Supp. 2d 320, 323
(D.P.R. 2005) (Dominguez, J.).
sparingly . . . .”
“Rule 59(e) relief is granted
Biltcliffe, 772 F.3d at 930.
III. DISCUSSION
The motion for reconsideration is unavailing because J&JI
neither demonstrates a manifest error of law, nor presents newly
discovered evidence.
See Biltcliffe, 772 F.3d at 930.
All new
arguments set forth in J&JI’s motion for reconsideration are based
on formerly available evidence and thus could and should have been
presented to the Court prior to its opinion.
F.3d at 104.
See Iverson, 452
J&JI can no longer raise these arguments.
See id.
Additionally, all arguments that were previously submitted to the
Court in J&JI’s earlier motions cannot be reconsidered.
Harley–Davidson
Motor
Co.,
897
F.2d
at
616.
Having
See
already
addressed J&JI’s arguments in its decisions, see Docket Nos. 53
and 54, the Court AFFIRMS its order to stay this case and its
denial of J&JI’s motion for provisional remedies.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, J&JI’s motion for reconsideration
(Docket No. 63) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Civil No. 17-1405 (FAB)
6
San Juan, Puerto Rico, October 26, 2017.
s/ Francisco A. Besosa
FRANCISCO A. BESOSA
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?