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