Colon v. Blades, No. 3:2007cv01380 - Document 244 (D.P.R. 2010)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part re 238 MOTION for Reconsideration Alter/Amend re 235 Opinion and Order filed by Ruben Blades Signed by Chief Mag. Judge Justo Arenas on 9/1/2010.(Arenas, Justo)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Colon v. Blades Doc. 244 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 2 3 4 WILLIAM ANTHONY COLÓN, 5 6 Plaintiff 7 v. 8 RUBÉN BLADES, ROBERTO MORGALO, MARTÍNEZ, MORGALO & ASSOCIATES, 9 10 11 12 Defendants RUBÉN BLADES, 13 Cross-Plaintiff 14 CIVIL 07-1380 (JA) v. 15 18 ROBERTO MORGALO, in his personal capacity, and as owner and member of MARTÍNEZ, MORGALO & ASSOCIATES, LLC; MARTÍNEZ, MORGALO & ASSOCIATES, LLC, 19 Cross-Defendants 16 17 20 21 22 OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Motion for Reconsideration and/or to Alter 23 or Amend Judgment filed by the defendant, Rubén Blades on July 23, 2010. 24 25 (Docket No. 238.) The motion was unopposed by plaintiff, William Anthony Colón. 26 For the reasons set forth below, the defendant’s motion is GRANTED in part and 27 DENIED in part. 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 CIVIL 07-1380 (JA) 2 2 3 4 5 I. OVERVIEW 6 The defendant moves for reconsideration, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 7 of the Opinion and Order issued on July 14, 2010. (Docket Nos. 235.) According 8 to the defendant, I erroneously denied his request for legal costs. (Id.) He claims 9 10 that since plaintiff did not object, I should not have denied his request for fees. 11 Id. at 4.) The defendant also claims that as the prevailing party he was entitled 12 to recover legal costs pursuant to the mandatory language in Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) 13 and Puerto Rico Civil Rule 44.1(a). (Id. at 5.) Moreover, the defendant contends 14 15 that attorney’s fees should have also been awarded because plaintiff instituted 16 and litigated for three years a groundless action vexatiously, wantonly, and for 17 oppressive reasons, only to dismiss it on the eve of trial. (Id. at 6.) He claims 18 that plaintiff’s in and out of court conduct alone shows that he acted with 19 20 temerity. (Id.) For instance, the defendant alleges that plaintiff initiated and 21 prosecuted this case against the wrong defendant and for a wrong amount, and 22 extended the case more than was necessary. (Id.) The defendant claims that 23 these actions caused him to undertake otherwise avoidable actions, and incur in 24 unnecessary expenses. (Id. at 7.) The defendant seeks $10,659.84 in legal 25 26 27 28 costs and $219,125.00 in attorney’s fees. (Id. at 4 & 7.) II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 1 CIVIL 07-1380 (JA) 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 “Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically provide for the filing of a motion for reconsideration, depending on the time it is served, it ‘may be entertained either as ... (1) a motion to alter or amend judgment 8 9 pursuant to Rule 59(e) Fed. R. Civ. P. or (2) a motion for relief from judgment 10 under Rule 60 Fed. R. Civ. P.’” Rosario-Méndez v. Hewlett Packard Caribe, 660 11 F. Supp.2d 229, 232 (D.P.R. 2009) (quoting Lozano v. Corona, 186 F. Supp.2d 77, 12 79 (D.P.R. 2002). “Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) allows a party, within [28] days of the 13 14 entry of judgment, to file a motion seeking to alter or amend said judgment. The 15 rule itself does not specify on what grounds the relief sought may be granted, and 16 courts have ample discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny such a motion.” 17 Candelario del Moral v. UBS Financial Services Inc. of Puerto Rico, ___ F. Supp. 18 19 2d ____, 2010 WL 1409433, * 2 (D.P.R. April 9, 2010) (citing Venegas-Hernández 20 v. Sonolux Records, 370 F.3d 183, 190 (1st Cir.2004)); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 59(e)(West 2010); Rodriguez-Rivas v. Police Dept. of Puerto Rico, 699 F. Supp. 22 2d 397, 400 (D.P.R. 2010). “Despite the lack of specific guidance by the rule on 23 that point, the First Circuit has stated that a Rule 59(e) motion ‘must either clearly 24 25 establish a manifest error of law or must present newly discovered evidence.’” 26 Cintrón v. Pavia Hato Rey Hosp., 27 (quoting F.D.I.C. v. World Univ., Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992) (citing Fed. 28 598 F. Supp. 2d 238, 241 (D.P.R. 2009) 1 CIVIL 07-1380 (JA) 4 2 3 4 5 Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir.1986)). “Rule 59(e) 6 may not, however, be used to raise arguments that could and should have been 7 presented before judgment was entered, nor to advance new legal theories.” 8 Cintrón v. Pavia Hato Rey Hosp., 598 F. Supp.2d at 241 (citing Bogosian v. 9 10 Woloohojian Realty Corp., 323 F.3d 55, 72 (1st Cir.2003)). 11 12 III. ANALYSIS 1. Legal Costs 13 14 “Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that costs other 15 than attorneys' fees shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless 16 the court otherwise directs.” Meléndez-Benitez v. U.S., 498 F. Supp. 2d 460, 462 17 (D.P.R. 2007); see also Rodríguez-García v. Davila, 904 F.2d 90, 100 (1st 18 19 Cir.1990) (holding that the “award of costs is a matter given to the discretion of 20 the district court, which [the First Circuit] will review only to ensure that no abuse 21 of discretion occurred”).1 “Though the Court has discretion in awarding costs, the 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Puerto Rico Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1(a) provides that: “Costs shall be allowed to the prevailing party, except when otherwise directed by law or by these rules. The costs which may be allowed by the court are those expenses necessarily incurred in prosecuting an action or proceeding which, according to law or to the discretion of the court, one of the parties should reimburse to the other.” Gil de Rebollo v. Miami Heat Associations, Inc., 137 F.3d 56, 66 (1st Cir. 1998) (quoting P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 32, App. III, Rule 44.1(a)). 1 CIVIL 07-1380 (JA) 5 2 3 4 5 First Circuit obligates the Court to ‘offer some statement as to why it denied [Rule 6 54(d)(1)] costs to [the] prevailing party.’” 7 Firestone, Inc., 224 F.R.D. 50, 51 (D.P.R. 2004) (quoting In re Two Appeals 8 Rivera-Pomales v. Bridgestone Arising Out of San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation, 994 F.2d 956, 963 (1st 9 10 Cir.1993)). “The burden is on the unsuccessful party to show circumstances that 11 are sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of the prevailing party . . . .” 12 10 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2668 13 (3d ed. 1998). 14 15 The defendant’s request for legal costs was denied because he had failed to 16 show that plaintiff had incurred in obstinacy. Colón v. Blades, ___ F. Supp. 2d 17 ____, 2010 WL 2802172, * 3 (D.P.R. July 14, 2010). Although I did state the 18 reason for denying the defendant’s request, that reason was wrong. Plaintiff’s 19 20 voluntary dismissal made the defendant the prevailing party. Maine School 21 Administrative Dist. No. 35 v. Mr. R., 321 F.3d 9, 16 (1st Cir. 2003) (holding that 22 “[a] triumphant defendant may qualify as a prevailing party for the purpose of 23 obtaining a fee award.”); see also 10 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 24 Federal Practice and Procedure § 2667 (3d ed. 1998). As such, plaintiff was 25 26 27 28 entitled to recover legal costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1). The only way that 1 CIVIL 07-1380 (JA) 6 2 3 4 5 the defendant could have been precluded from recovering legal costs would have 6 been if plaintiff had shown that 7 neither the motion for attorney’s fees nor the motion for reconsideration, plaintiff 8 it was unwarranted. However, by opposing failed to meet his burden. Therefore, I leave without effect the prior holding in 9 10 11 12 13 part and grant the defendant’s request for legal costs in the amount of $10,659.84. 2. Attorney’s Fees In diversity cases “the applicable standard of law for the determination of 14 15 attorney’s fees is state law.” Rodríguez-López v. Institución Perpetuo Socorro, 16 Inc., 616 F. Supp. 2d 200, 202 (D.P.R. 2009). Under Puerto Rico law attorney’s 17 fees may be awarded when a “party or its lawyer has acted obstinately or 18 frivolously . . . .” Tañon v. Muñiz, 312 F. Supp. 2d 143, 152 (D.P.R. 2004) 19 20 (quoting P.R. R. Civ. P. 44.1(d)). “The term obstinate has been described by the 21 courts as conduct which (1) forces an avoidable litigation, (2) needlessly prolongs 22 it or (3) requires opposing party to engage in unnecessary efforts.” 23 24 25 Nuñez- Santiago v. Puerto Rico Elec. Power Authority, 206 F. Supp. 2d 231, 233 (D.P.R. 2002) (citing Dopp v. Pritzker, 38 F.3d 1239, 1253 (1st Cir. 1994); Newell Puerto 26 Rico, Ltd. v. Rubbermaid Inc., 20 F.3d 15, 24 (1st Cir. 1994); Jarra Corp. v. Axxis 27 Corp., 155 D.P.R. 764, 779 (2001); Blas Toledo v. Hosp. Guadalupe, 146 D.P.R. 28 1 CIVIL 07-1380 (JA) 7 2 3 4 5 267, 335 (1998); Fernández-Mariño v. San Juan Cement Co., Inc., 118 D.P.R. 6 713, 718 (1987)). “Even though the degree of the party's obstinacy is the most 7 important factor in determining whether attorney's fees are warranted; other 8 factors should be taken into consideration including the nature of the litigation, the 9 10 difficulty of issues involved, and the efforts and abilities of the attorneys.” 11 Intimate Fashions, Inc. v. El Telar, Inc., 570 F. Supp. 2d 225, 231 (D.P.R. 2008) 12 (citing Correa v. Cruisers, a Div. of KCS Int'l, Inc., 298 F.3d 13, 31 (1st 13 Cir.2002)). “If the court concludes that a party has been obstinate, the 14 15 assessment of attorneys' fees and legal interest is mandatory.” Vázquez-Filippetti 16 v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, 409 F. Supp.2d 94, 99 (D.P.R. 2006) (citing 17 Correa v. Cruisers, a Div. of KCS Int'l, Inc., 298 F.3d at 31; Fajardo Shopping 18 Ctr., S.E. v. Sun Alliance Ins. Co. of Puerto Rico, Inc., 167 F.3d 1, 14 (1st Cir. 19 20 1999) (citing Dopp v. Pritzker, 38 F.3d at 1252)). 21 In Colón v. Blades, ___ F. Supp. 2d ____, 2010 WL 2802172, * 2 (D.P.R. 22 July 14, 2010) the defendant argued that he was entitled to attorney’s fees 23 because plaintiff’s claims were factually frivolous, brought for improper purposes 24 25 and obstinately maintained against him. However, I found that plaintiff had not 26 acted obstinately because: (1) the case involved complex issues of both facts and 27 law, (2) plaintiff never delayed or demonstrated stubbornness in discovery, (3) 28 1 CIVIL 07-1380 (JA) 8 2 3 4 5 plaintiff did not disregard any of the Court’s orders, and (4) plaintiff never acted 6 with temerity in settlement negotiations. Id. The defendant, however, asks me 7 to reconsider my ruling. 8 (Docket No. 238, at 8.) He argues that plaintiff’s stubborn insistence in accusing him of the wrong doings of Martínez, Morgalo & 9 10 Associates, Inc. and its partners, and his demand for $115,000-an amount in 11 excess of the true balance owed by these defendants- constitutes temerity under 12 the standards of Rule 44.1(d) and its interpretative jurisprudence. (Id.) 13 14 It is unequivocally clear that the defendant’s argument does not warrant a 15 reconsideration of my prior finding since it “simply brings a point of disagreement 16 between the court and the litigant . . . .” López-Quinones v. Puerto Rico Nat. 17 Guard, ___ F. Supp. 2d ____, 2010 WL 2222209, * 11 (D.P.R. May 26, 2010). 18 19 It is well settled that “[a] motion for reconsideration . . . may not be used ‘to 20 repeat old arguments previously considered and rejected, or to raise new legal 21 theories that should have been raised earlier.’” Moreno-Pérez v. Toledo-Dávila, 22 266 F.R.D. 46, 48 (D.P.R. 2010) (quoting Sánchez-Rodríguez v. Departamento de 23 Corrección y Rehabilitación, 537 F. Supp.2d 295, 297 (D.P.R.2008) (quoting Nat'l 24 25 Metal Finishing Co. v. BarclaysAm./Commercial, Inc., 899 F.2d 119, 123 (1st 26 Cir.1990)). 27 reconsideration in any of three situations: (1) the availability of new evidence not 28 “A district court may, however, grant a party's motion for 1 CIVIL 07-1380 (JA) 9 2 3 4 5 previously available, (2) an intervening change in controlling law, or (3) the need 6 to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice.” Sánchez-Medina 7 v. UNICCO Service Co., 265 F.R.D. 29, 33 (D.P.R. 2010) (quoting Sánchez- 8 Rodríguez v. Departamento de Corrección y Rehabilitación, 537 F. Supp.2d 295, 9 10 297 (D.P.R.2008) (citing Dodge v. Susquehanna Univ., 796 F. Supp. 829, 830 11 (M.D. Pa.1992)). Since none of these situations are present in this case in relation 12 to the matter of attorney’s fees, I find there is no reason to reconsider the prior 13 finding. Therefore, the defendant is not entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s 14 15 16 17 fees in the amount of $219,125.00. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration 18 19 and/or Alter or Amend Judgment is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 20 Accordingly, the motion is granted in part in that the defendant is awarded legal 21 costs in the amount of $10,659.84. 22 The motion is otherwise denied. At San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 1st day of September, 2010. 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.
