Marrero-Ramos et al v. University of Puerto Rico et al, No. 3:2013cv01076 - Document 62 (D.P.R. 2014)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 60 MOTION for Reconsideration re 59 Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Jose A. Fuste on 09/29/2014.(mrj)

Download PDF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 1 2 3 4 JOSE L. MARRERO-RAMOS, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil No. 13-1076 (JAF) v. UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO, et al., Defendants. 5 OPINION AND ORDER 6 7 Plaintiff JosÃ© L. Marrero-Ramos ( Marrero-Ramos or Plaintiff )1 sued Defendants, 8 the University of Puerto Rico, MayagÃ¼ez Campus ( UPR MayagÃ¼ez ); Miguel A. MuÃ±oz 9 ( MuÃ±oz); Jorge Rivera-Santos ( Rivera-Santos ); Lourdes Rosario ( Rosario ); and 10 Insurance Company XYZ (collectively Defendants ) in diversity jurisdiction following a 11 workplace laboratory accident that caused Marrero-Ramos severe injuries. (Docket No. 1.) 12 On September 23, 2014, we granted Defendants motion for summary judgment, finding that 13 the suit was barred both by Eleventh Amendment immunity and by the workers 14 compensation scheme. 15 reconsideration. (Docket No. 60.) (Docket No. 59.) The same day, Plaintiff filed a motion for 16 First, Plaintiff argues that Plaintiff, due to an oversight, omitted to include any 17 admissions, denials, or qualifications to Defendants statements of facts in their papers 18 opposing summary judgment. (Docket No. 60.) Failure on such a fundamental duty cannot 19 be waived away as an oversight. Plaintiff also respectfully requests that this court clarify 1 This case originally included two other plaintiffs, but they were dismissed with prejudice on September 4, 2014. (Docket No. 46.) Civil No. 13-1076 (JAF) -2- 1 whether it acknowledged the existence of [ Plaintiffs Statement of Uncontested facts ] and 2 whether it took them into account to support its conclusion that the exception to the employer 3 immunity was not applicable in this case. (Docket No. 60 at 2.) The court read and took into 4 account all the materials that were submitted in the summary judgment papers, including the 5 Plaintiff s Statement of Facts. 6 Second, Plaintiff addresses the issue of diversity. (Docket No. 60 at 2.) This is 7 irrelevant, given that our opinion found the issue to be mooted by the voluntary dismissal of 8 two non-diverse plaintiffs. (Docket No. 59 at 4.) 9 10 Third, Plaintiff alleges that sovereign immunity does not extend to MuÃ±oz, RiveraSantos, and Rosario. (Docket No. 60 at 2.) He alleges that: Even if the court does not admit the omitted denial attached to this Motion both the complaint which does not refer to these co-defendants as sued in their official capacity and several Plaintiffs uncontested facts show the involvement of codefendants in their personal capacity. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 (Docket No. 60 at 2.) The denial attached to this motion simply denies that these parties are 18 sued in their official capacities. (Docket No. 60-1.) The complaint made no mention of 19 whether they are sued in their official or personal capacities. 20 mentioned the job title of each, and that they were of legal age, married, and resident of 21 [Puerto Rico]. (Docket No. 1 at 2.) The complaint also mentioned that Rosario was 22 Marrero s supervisor. (Docket No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff does not explain how any of the 23 uncontested facts show Defendants were sued in their personal capacity. (See Docket No. 24 60 at 2.) Personal-capacity suits seek to impose personal liability upon a government 25 official for actions he takes under color of state law [....] Official-capacity suits, in contrast 26 generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an The complaint simply Civil No. 13-1076 (JAF) -3- 1 officer is an agent. 2 defendants sued only in their official capacities in the original complaint cannot be expected 3 to be on notice of the very different issues raised by claims against them in their personal 4 capacities. Rodriguez-Garcia v. Municipality of Caguas, 354 F.3d 91, 100 (1st Cir. 2004). 5 We find analogous issues of inadequate notice for plaintiffs who are sued along with their 6 employer and who are not notified that they are sued in anything other than their official 7 capacities. Regardless, we already held in our opinion that the suit must be dismissed under 8 the workmen s compensation scheme. (Docket No. 59.) Therefore, the issue is moot. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985). In general, 9 Fourth, Plaintiff alleges, without further explanation, that the facts contained in 10 Plaintiff s SUF which are uncontested, support a conclusion that the exception to the 11 employer immunity as construed by the PR Supreme Court is applicable to the present case. 12 (Docket No. 60 at 2) (emphasis in original). We clearly explained in our original opinion 13 why this is not the case. (See Docket No. 59.) 14 III. 15 Conclusion 16 17 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 60) is DENIED. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 29th day of September, 2014. 20 21 22 S/JosÃ© Antonio FustÃ© JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE U. S. DISTRICT 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.