Ramos-Borges et al v. Puerto Rico Health Department et al, No. 3:2008cv01692 - Document 64 (D.P.R. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting re 62 First MOTION to Continue Trial filed by Lynnette Ramos-Borges Signed by Chief Mag. Judge Justo Arenas on 5/20/2010.(nydi)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 2 3 4 LYNNETTE RAMOS-BORGES, et al., 5 6 Plaintiffs 7 v. 8 COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, et al., 9 10 CIVIL 08-1692 (JA) Defendants 11 12 OPINION AND ORDER 13 14 This matter is before the court on motion for continuance filed by plaintiff, 15 Lynnette Ramos-Borges, on May 17, 2010. (Docket No. 62.) Defendants, the 16 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Puerto Rico Health Department, Rosa Pérez- 17 18 Perdomo, Samuel Barbosa and Hermes Rivera-Polanco, opposed plaintiff s motion 19 on May 19, 2010. (Docket No. 63.) For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff s 20 motion is GRANTED. 21 I. OVERVIEW 22 23 On March 24, 2010, the court entered an order in which the trial was 24 scheduled to start on June 1, 2010. (Docket No. 35.) However, plaintiff now 25 requests the court to assign a new trial date or that it be postponed until after 26 July 15, 2010. (Docket No. 62.) The reason why plaintiff requests that the trial 27 28 be continued on a later date is because of her son s illness. (Id.) According to 1 CIVIL 08-1692 (JA) 2 2 3 plaintiff, her son has been suffering from a serious medical condition that has 4 5 caused him to lose all of his hair and develop ulcers all over his body. (Id. at 1, 6 ¶ 3.) 7 participate in school activities because he cannot be exposed to sunlight. (Id.) 8 As a result of his condition, plaintiff claims that her son is unable to Plaintiff claims that because doctors in Puerto Rico were not able to properly 9 10 diagnose and treat her son s illness, his condition got worse over the last year. 11 (Id. at 2-3, ¶ 4.) Thus, in order to avoid any further deterioration, she and her 12 son traveled to the Mayo Clinic at Jacksonville, Florida, for an evaluation. Plaintiff 13 claims that doctors there discovered that her son suffered from a rare condition 14 15 called Severe Ectopy with Atopic Dermatitis. (Id. ¶ 5.) The doctors also 16 discovered that plaintiff s son had a deficiency in protein Filagrin and was 17 experiencing liver problems associated with his condition. 18 (Id.) After being diagnosed, plaintiff claims that her son s condition improved after he began 19 20 receiving treatment. 21 However, plaintiff claims that she and her son had to travel to the United 22 States because her son s condition worsened. (Id. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff states that even 23 though she believes that she will return to Puerto Rico on May 24, 2010, it is 24 uncertain that she will be able to be prepared and be present at trial on June 1, 25 26 2010. (Id. ¶ 7.) The defendants in turn contend that continuance should not be 27 allowed because they have spent time and resources preparing for the trial, and 28 1 CIVIL 08-1692 (JA) 3 2 3 because plaintiff had to know in advance that her son s condition would required 4 5 her to travel on May 17, 2010, but that she waited for the same day to notify 6 them. (Docket No. 63, at 1, ¶ 3.) Also, the defendants claim that if the trial is 7 rescheduled as plaintiff proposes, Pérez-Perdomo will not be able to attend the 8 trial because she is going to be in the United States until the last week of August, 9 10 2010. (Id. at 1-2, ¶ 4.) II. ANALYSIS 11 12 13 Motions for continuance are addressed to the informed discretion of the district court. Real v. Hogan, 828 F.2d 58, 63 (1st Cir. 1987) (citing United 14 15 States v. Waldman, 579 F.2d 649, 653 (1st Cir. 1978)). In determining whether 16 or not a request for continuance should be granted, courts must look to see if 17 there have been prior continuances or delays, the prejudice that may be caused 18 to the non-moving party, and the good faith of the moving party. Amarin Plastics, 19 20 Inc. v. Maryland Cup Corp., 946 F.2d 147, 151 (1st Cir. 1991) (citing United 21 States v. Lussier, 929 F.2d 25, 28 (1st Cir. 1991); United States v. Waldman, 22 579 F.2d 649, 653 (1st Cir. 1978)). 23 24 In this case, each of these factors weighs in favor of plaintiff s request for continuance. First, up until this moment there have not been any prior 25 26 continuances or delays. Second, the defendant has not shown that it will suffer 27 any particular prejudice if the trial were to be rescheduled. Besides the trial being 28 1 CIVIL 08-1692 (JA) 4 2 3 delayed, the only inconvenience that would come as a result of allowing the 4 5 continuance would be that Pérez-Perdomo will not be able to attend trial on the 6 date proposed by plaintiff. However, the trial can be rescheduled for a later date 7 in order to assure Pérez-Perdomo s attendance. Third, although plaintiff s request 8 for continuance was made with little less than a month before trial, there is no 9 10 reason to believe that plaintiff has not acted in good faith. As she has explained, 11 plaintiff will not able to appear in court on June 1, 2010, because she is in the 12 United States seeking treatment for her son s condition. Contrary to what the 13 defendants argue, the court is in no position to determine whether or not plaintiff 14 15 knew in advance that her son s condition would required her to travel to the 16 United States on May 17, 2010. Furthermore, the fact that plaintiff requested the 17 continuance on the same day that she left to the United States does not mean 18 that it was done with the sole purpose of delaying the trial. In other words, 19 20 plaintiff s actions cannot be construed as acts of bad faith. Since plaintiff s request 21 for continuance is justified, a new trial date will later be assigned. Since the trial 22 will be rescheduled and my trial calendar allows for more flexibility than it 23 previously did, the defendants motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 39) will 24 25 26 27 28 be considered. Plaintiff is granted 45 days to respond to the defendants motion. 1 CIVIL 08-1692 (JA) 5 2 3 III. CONCLUSION 4 5 For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff s motion for continuance is 6 GRANTED. The court s April 12, 2010, order granting plaintiff s motion to strike 7 the defendants motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 45) and the May 3, 8 2010, order denying the defendants motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 56) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 are hereby VACATED. At San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 20th day of May, 2010. 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.