Colon v. Blades, No. 3:2007cv01380 - Document 172 (D.P.R. 2010)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying re 153 MOTION for Reconsideration re 145 Opinion and Order filed by Roberto Morgalo Signed by Chief Mag. Judge Justo Arenas on 4/14/2010.(nydi)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 2 3 4 WILLIAM ANTHONY COLà N, 5 6 Plaintiff 7 v. 8 RUBà N BLADES, ROBERTO MORGALO, MARTà NEZ MORGALO & ASSOCIATES, 9 10 11 Defendants 12 RUBà N BLADES, 13 Cross-Plaintiff 14 v. 15 CIVIL 07-1380 (JA) 18 ROBERT MORGALO, in his personal capacity and as owner and member of MARTà NEZ, MORGALO & ASSOCIATES, LLC; MARTà NEZ, MORGALO & ASSOCIATES, LLC, 19 Cross-Defendants 20 ROBERT J. MORGALO, 16 17 21 Plaintiff 22 23 24 v. RUBà N BLADES, RUBà N BLADES PRODUCTIONS, INC., 25 26 27 28 Defendants 1 CIVIL 07-1380 (JA) 2 2 3 OPINION AND ORDER 4 5 This matter is before the court on motion for reconsideration of the Opinion 6 and Order dated March 19, 2010, filed by the Roberto Morgalo ( Mr. Morgalo ) 7 on March 29, 2010. (Docket No. 153.) A motion in opposition was filed by Rubén 8 Blades ( Mr. Blades ) on March 31, 2010. (Docket No. 155.) For the reasons set 9 10 forth below, Mr. Morgalo s motion is DENIED. I. BACKGROUND 11 12 13 On February 16, 2010, Mr. Blades filed a motion requesting the court to order Mr. Morgalo and William Anthony Colón ( Mr. Colón ) to produce a box of 14 15 documents containing financial information of MartÃnez, Morgalo & Associates. 16 (Docket No. 119, at 2, ¶ 1.) In his motion, Mr. Blades claimed that despite its 17 numerous requests he was never given access to the documents. (Id.) 18 On January 18, 2010, Mr. Morgalo opposed Mr. Blades motion to compel. 19 20 (Docket No. 121.) Mr. Morgalo contended that he could not be compelled to 21 produce the documents. (Id.) According to him, the requested documents were 22 turned over on April 22, 2009, to Mr. Colón s attorney during the deposition of Mr. 23 Blades. 24 (Id. at 3, ¶¶ 3-4.) Also, Mr. Morgalo claimed that Mr. Blades had acknowledged the receipt of the documents, and that the requested discovery was 25 26 27 28 not under his control. (Id. at 4, ¶ 6 & at 7, ¶ 14.) 1 CIVIL 07-1380 (JA) 3 2 3 On February 22, 2010, Mr. Blades filed a reply memorandum of law in 4 5 support of his motion to compel. (Docket No. 124.) Mr. Blades contends that he 6 never acknowledged receipt of the documents. (Id. at 3, ¶ 7.) Also, Mr. Blades 7 argues that the requested documents had to be produced regardless of whether 8 they were in Mr. Morgalo s possession. (Id. at 6-8.) According to Mr. Blades, Mr. 9 10 11 Morgalo had control over the documents because he had a legal right over them. (Id.) 12 13 On March 2, 2010, Mr. Colón filed an informative motion in which he indicated that his attorney searched for the document but that he was not able to 14 15 find them. (Docket No. 134, at 4, ¶ 7.) According to Mr. Colón the documents 16 sought by Mr. Blades were probably picked up from his attorney s office either by 17 Mr. Morgalo or by another person. (Id. at 2-3, ¶ 4.) 18 On March 19, 2010, an Opinion and Order was issued granting Mr. Blades 19 20 motion to compel production of documents. (Docket No. 145.) As a result, Mr. 21 Morgalo was precluded from presenting as evidence any of the documents 22 requested by Mr. Blades and/or any testimony related to them. (Id. at 14.) 23 Also, Mr. Morgalo [was] ordered to pay $1,000 in attorney s fees to Mr. Blades. 24 (Id.) 25 26 On March 29, 2010, Mr. Colón filed a motion informing that the documents 27 had been discovered and that they were available for immediate review and 28 1 CIVIL 07-1380 (JA) 4 2 3 delivery. (Docket No. 152.) On that same day, Mr. Morgalo filed a motion 4 5 seeking reconsideration of the Opinion and Order. (Docket No. 153.) In his 6 motion, Mr. Morgalo contends that since all of the parties admitted that the 7 documents were turned over to Mr. Colón s attorney on April 22, 2009, he was not 8 required to provide a statement under oath indicating that the documents 9 10 requested by Mr. Blades had been produced. (Id. at 2, ¶ 3.) Mr. Morgalo also 11 argues that contrary to what the court held, the documents that were requested 12 by Mr. Blades were not under his control. (Id. at 3, ¶ 4.) 13 Mr. Morgalo claims that he requested the documents on multiple occasions 14 15 but they were never produced because they had been misplaced by Mr. Colón s 16 attorney. (Id.) Mr. Morgalo also argues that he did not have the authority or 17 ability to obtain the documents. (Id.) Mr. Morgalo thus requests that: (1) the 18 sanctions that were imposed be vacated; (2) he no longer be precluded from 19 20 presenting as evidence any of the documents that were requested by Mr. Blades; 21 (3) if the court finds that sanctions are still appropriate, that they be imposed 22 upon Mr. Colon.1 (Id. at 5.) 23 1 24 25 26 27 28 Mr. Morgalo also requests that the court clarify a finding set forth in page 10, lines 13-16 of the Opinion and Order, which reads as follows: Mr. Colón claims that a few days prior to the concert, Mr. Blades informed him that Mr. Morgalo had disappeared with their money. (Docket No. 153, at 4, ¶ 7.) According to Mr. Morgalo, the court s finding is not supported by the record. (Id. at 5.) Mr. Morgalo claims that the court s finding is incorrect because in the amended complaint, Mr. Colón alleges that Mr. Blades informed him that Arturo MartÃnez ( Mr. MartÃnez ) was the one who disappeared with the money and not 1 CIVIL 07-1380 (JA) 5 2 3 On March 31, 2010, Mr. Blades opposed to Mr. Morgalo s motion for 4 5 reconsideration. (Docket No. 155.) Mr. Blades argues that there is no reason 6 that would justify modifying or vacating the Opinion and Order. (Id. at 4, ¶ 9.) 7 According to Mr. Blades he was not able to incorporate the evidence requested 8 into his litigation strategy and depose Mr. Morgalo. (Id. at 2, ¶ 3.) Also, Mr. 9 10 Blades claims that the documents have not yet been produced, and that there is 11 no guarantee that the documents that were delivered by Mr. Morgalo to Mr. Colón 12 have bee preserved or maintained. (Id.) He argues that there is still no index, 13 log or useful description of the documents, which he believes could have been 14 15 16 removed, destroyed or lost. (Id.) Mr. Blades requests that, if the court were to reconsider, facts 2-28 of the amended cross-claim be established for trial or that 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 him. (Id. at 4, ¶ 7.) Mr. Blades on the other hand argues that although it is true that in the amended complaint it is alleged that Mr. MartÃnez disappeared with the money, paragraph 23 of the amended cross-claim states that both Mr. Morgalo and Mr. MartÃnez disappeared and could not be found to account for the money. (Docket No. 155, at 4, ¶ 10.) Thus, Mr. Blades claims that [w]ith such additional record reference, the recitation of facts is correct. (Id.) After reviewing the amended complaint, I find that the findings of facts in the Opinion and Order need to be clarified. As Mr. Morgalo points out, the amended complaint states that Mr. MartÃnez was the one who disappeared with the money and not him. (Docket No. 45, at 2-3, ¶ 13.) As to the amended cross-claim, it is alleged that Mr. Morgalo and Mr. MartÃnez disappeared and that there was not anyone who could account for the money. (Docket No. 56, at 7, ¶ 23.) It is not, however, alleged that Mr. Morgalo and Mr. MartÃnez disappeared with the money. (Id.) Thus, the findings of fact cannot be corrected as Mr. Blades proposes. What Mr. Blades suggests is for the court to infer that Mr. Morgalo disappeared with the money. That will not happen. 1 CIVIL 07-1380 (JA) 6 2 3 he be entitled to an inference that the evidence sought and not produced by Mr. 4 5 Morgalo was unfavorable to him. (Id. at 3, ¶ 5.) Also, Mr. Blades requests that, 6 based on the number of hours, cost and expenses incurred in seeking an order to 7 compel and reply memoranda, the costs awarded be increased to no less than 8 9 10 $3,000. (Id.) II. ANALYSIS After analyzing Mr. Morgalo s motion for reconsideration, I find no reason 11 12 to vacate, modify or alter the Opinion and Order, since the motion simply restates 13 the same arguments that have already been considered and ruled upon. It is well 14 settled that a request for reconsideration cannot be used merely to reargue a 15 point already decided. Villanueva-Méndez v. Nieves Vázquez, 360 F. Supp. 2d 16 320, 325 (D.P.R. 2005) (citing Barrett v. Lombardi, 239 F.3d 23, 28 (1st Cir. 17 18 2001)). Motions for reconsideration [are an] extraordinary remedy [that] should 19 be sparingly granted. Villanueva-Méndez v. Nieves Vázquez, 360 F. Supp. 2d at 20 326 (citing Trabal-Hernández v. Sealand Servs., Inc., 230 F. Supp. 2d 258, 259 21 (D.P.R. 2002)). As such, a motion for reconsideration is not a means for a party 22 23 to request the Court to rethink a decision it has already made, rightly or 24 wrongly. Villanueva-Méndez v. Nieves Vázquez, 360 F. Supp. 2d at 325-26 25 (quoting Williams v. City of Pittsburgh, 32 F. Supp. 2d 236, 238 (W.D. Pa. 1998)). 26 None of Mr. Morgalo s arguments show that the Opinion and Order either 27 28 suffers from a manifest error of law or that it is clearly unjust. Also, Mr. Morgalo 1 CIVIL 07-1380 (JA) 7 2 3 does not bring forth new evidence or an intervening change in controlling law that 4 5 should be considered in order to prevent a manifest injustice. The fact that the 6 documents requested appeared out of nowhere after the Opinion and Order was 7 entered does not change the fact, as Mr. Blades points out, of the severe 8 inconveniences that have been imposed on the court. (Docket No. 155, at 2-3, 9 10 ¶ 4.) It is clear more than anything else, that Mr. Morgalo simply disagrees with 11 the court s Opinion and Order. Therefore, I find that Mr. Morgalo is not entitled 12 to the relief sought. 13 III. CONCLUSION 14 15 16 17 For the reasons set forth above, Mr. Morgalo s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. At San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 14th of April, 2010. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 S/ JUSTO ARENAS Chief United States Magistrate Judge
]]>
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.
