Diaz-Baez v. Alicea-Vasallo, No. 19-1474 (1st Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on December 23, 2021.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 19-1474 MARÍA S. DÍAZ-BÁEZ; VÍCTOR A. BURGOS-TORRES; THELMA L. PÉREZGUZMÁN; MARISOL DOMÍNGUEZ-RIVERA; HÉCTOR J. ALBELO-CARTAGENA; MÓNICA MOLINA-SALAS; RAMÓN L. RIVERA-GASCOT; SYLVIA ALVARADOHERNÁNDEZ; PEDRO R. MARTÍNEZ-AGOSTO; CARMEN E. MEDINA-ADORNO; PEDRO I. CARTAGENA-RODRÍGUEZ; EDUARDO BARREIRO-DIAZ; MELIXA MARRERO-GONZÁLEZ; MERCEDES LAMBERTY-ROMÁN; CARLOS A. AQUINOVALENTÍN; DEBBIE A. CARDONA-CAPRE; DIANA I. SÁNCHEZ-PAGÁN; FÉLIX MARRERO-VÁZQUEZ; GISSELLE PAGÁN-MELÉNDEZ; SHIERLY CARDONA-ORTIZ; ROSA M. SOTO-GARCÍA; LIMARI MARTÍNEZ-RODRÍGUEZ; MARIEL TORRESLÓPEZ; ANTONIO J. COLLADO-RIVERA; VIVIAN M. BRACERO-ROSA; LUIS COSS-VARGAS; BRAULIO E. FIGUEROA-DÍAZ; ROSA M. SANTOS-CARBALLO; KAROLIE GÓMEZ-RIVERA; OMAR RIVERA-PÉREZ; CLARIBEL ROSADOFERNÁNDEZ; IVÁN E. GONZÁLEZ-GARCÍA; JOSÉ GRAU-ORTIZ; BRENDA MARTÍNEZ-FIGUEROA; CIRILO TIRADO-RIVERA; BETZAIDA ROSARIO-FÉLIX; VIRGILIO ESCOBAR-QUIÑONES; LUZ CRISTINA JIMÉNEZ-CORTÉS; HÉCTOR M. BARRIOS-VELÁZQUEZ; MÓNICA RODRÍGUEZ-OCASIO; DANIEL RAMOSRAMOS; CARMEN HAYDEÉ RAMOS-LUNA; MELISA RIVERA-FUENTES; MARIELI RÍOS-PÉREZ; EVELYN VELÁZQUEZ-ADORNO; JOSÉ W. ORTIZ-LÓPEZ; CÉSAR E. DEIDA-TORRES; DAVID R. SHERMAN; REBECCA COTTO-OYOLA; DAVID PONCE-MENA; NATIVIDAD CURBELLO-CONTRERAS; VIRGINIA ECHEVARRÍA; PEDRO FÉLIX-TORRES; RUTH M. MELÉNDEZ-RODRÍGUEZ; ZUHER YOUSSIFYASSIN; ASTRID M. DELGADO-IRIZARRY; TIRSO RODRÍGUEZ-APONTE; YANIRA RODRÍGUEZ-RIVERA; VIVIAN A. HERNÁNDEZ-ROBLES; ROBERTO MIRANDA-SANTIAGO; ADA I. RIVERA-GARCÍA; JOSÉ E. FIGUEROA-NIEVES; ALLAN WAINWRIGHT-ESTAPE; DAISY RODRÍGUEZ-ALEJANDRO; RADAMÉS PÉREZ-RODRÍGUEZ; MARÍA I. DELANNOY-DE-JESÚS; MANUEL R. REYES ALFONSO; AMARILIS RIVERO-QUILES; LUIS LAGARES-GARCÍA; ROCÍO RIVERA-TORRES; JONATHAN R. ORTIZ-SERRANO; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP ALBELO-HERNÁNDEZ; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP BARREIRO-ROSARIO; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP BURGOS-DÍAZ; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CARTAGENA-MEDINA; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP COLLADO-TORRES; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP COSS-BRACERO; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP FÉLIX-ECHEVARRÍA; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP FIGUEROA-RIVERA; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP FIGUEROA-SANTOS; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP GRAU-VÁZQUEZ; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP MARRERO-PAGÁN; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP MARTÍNEZALVARADO; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP MIRANDA-HERNÁNDEZ; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP MULER-VELÁZQUEZ; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP ORTIZ-ACEVEDO; CONJUGAL PARTNRESHIP PONCE-COTTO; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP RAMOSRODRÍGUEZ; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP REYES-DELANNOY; CONJUGAL - 1 - PARTNERSHIP RODRÍGUEZ-RODRÍGUEZ; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP RIVERAROSADO; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP TIRADO-MARTÍNEZ; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP LAGARES-RIVERO, Plaintiffs, Appellants, JUANA M. CONTRERAS-CASTRO; LEILA A. HERNÁNDEZ-JIMÉNEZ; YELITZA I. HERNÁNDEZ-HERNÁNDEZ; YALITZA ROSARIO-MENENDEZ; RAQUEL CARDONA-SOTO; MARIBEL ALICEA-LUGO; HUMBERTO L. MULER-SANTIAGO; MARIELA TORRES-MOLINI; CARMEN YOLANDA VÁZQUEZ-ORTIZ; LUIS A. RODRÍGUEZ-TORO; NEREIDA RIVERA-BATISTA; BERNICE BERBERENAMALDONADO; RICARDO ROSARIO-SÁNCHEZ; AXEL FRESSE-ÁLVAREZ; GLORIELY MIRANDA-OCASIO; LUIS A. MULER-SANTIAGO; GRETCHEN M. ACEVEDO-RIVERA; DOMINGO MARIANI-MOLINI; REBECA M. NEGRÓNUMPIERRE; JORGE APARICIO-TORRES; CARMEN E. RODRIGUEZ-SANTIAGO; LYNETTE YAMBÓ-MERCADO; MARIANNA RAMÍREZ-ÁLVAREZ; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP FRESSE-MIRANDA; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP ROSARIOBERBERENA, Plaintiffs, v. JULIO ALICEA-VASALLO, Executive Director of the AACA, in his official and personal capacities; AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION, Defendants, Appellees, MARIBEL CONCEPCIÓN-CANTRES, former Personnel Director of the AACA, in her official and personal capacities; ABC INSURANCE COMPANY; ERNESTO RIVERA-NEGRÓN; RICHARD DOE; JANE ROE; JANE DOE; JOHN DOE; X CORPORATION; Y CORPORATION; DEF INSURANCE COMPANY; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP ALICEA-DOE; CONJGAL PARTNERSHIP DOECONCEPCIÓN; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP RIVERA-ROE, Defendants. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court, issued on December 23, 2021, is amended as follows: - 2 - On pages 11–12, footnote 3, add after "(similar)." "The district court had ruled the stay did not apply. The parties in whose interest it would have been to take advantage of the stay, if applicable at all, take the position the stay did not apply and no party appealed the determination by the district court. Our decision in HealthproMed Foundation, Inc. v. Department of Health and Human Services, 982 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2020), is distinguishable because it was clear the stay applied and here the issue is one of considerable complexity. See also Borrás-Borrero v. Corporación del Fondo del Seguro del Estado, 958 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 2020) (bypassing the application of the PROMESA automatic stay where the parties agreed the stay did not apply, the stay issue was "not clear-cut," and the judgment resulted in dismissal on the merits)." On page 22, line 1, Directors". - 3 - add "the" before "Board of
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
