Cruz-Claudio et al v. Garcia Trucking Service Inc et al, No. 3:2006cv01863 - Document 42 (D.P.R. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying re 40 MOTION for Reconsideration re 38 Opinion and Order, 39 Judgment MOTION for Reconsideration re 38 Opinion and Order, 39 Judgment filed by Gloria J Mercado-Maldonado, Conjugal Partnership Cruz-Mercado, Eddie Cruz-Claudio Signed by Chief Mag. Judge Justo Arenas on 8/24/2009.(nydi)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 2 3 4 EDDIE CRUZ-CLAUDIO, et al., 5 Plaintiffs 6 7 8 v. CIVIL 06-1863 (ADC) (JA) GARCà A TRUCKING SERVICE, INC., et al., 9 10 Defendants 11 12 OPINION AND ORDER 13 14 On July 28, 2009, I entered an opinion and order granting summary 15 judgment in favor of defendant García Trucking Service and dismissing plaintiff 16 Cruz-Claudio s claims of age-based discrimination and retaliation. Cruz-Claudio 17 18 v. García Trucking Serv., Inc., No. 06-1863, Docket No. 38, 2009 WL 2240482 19 (D.P.R. 2009). Before the court is Cruz-Claudio s August 4, 2009 motion for 20 reconsideration of that decision. (Docket No. 40.) García Trucking moved in 21 opposition to that on August 10, 2009. (Docket No. 41.) Plaintiff s arguments 22 23 having been considered, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 24 I entered summary judgment in favor of García Trucking Service because 25 plaintiff failed to produce sufficient credible evidence that any adverse actions 26 27 28 29 taken against him were the result of age-based discrimination or retaliation. Because evidence as to this causal element was absent, summary judgment was 1 CIVIL 06-1863 (ADC) (JA) 2 2 3 4 granted. That plaintiff may have suffered adverse employment actions is not in 5 6 itself sufficient to overcome summary judgment on a discrimination claim where 7 there is no evidence of either age-based discrimination, 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1); 8 Dávila v. Corporación de P.R. para la Difusión Pública, 498 F.3d 9, 15 (1st Cir. 9 2007), or retaliatory motives. 29 U.S.C. § 623(d). I so held in the summary 10 11 judgment order. Cruz-Claudio v. García Trucking Serv., Inc., 2009 WL 2240482, 12 at *14. 13 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Rule 59(e) allows a party to petition the court to alter or amend its judgment within 10 days of entry of said judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Specifically, Rule 59(e) allows a party to direct the district court s attention to newly discovered material evidence or a manifest error of law or fact . . . . DiMarco-Zappa v. Cabanillas, 238 F.3d 25, 34 (1st Cir. 2001); see Pomerleau v. W. Springfield Pub. Schs., 362 F.3d 143, 146 n.2 (1st Cir. 2004). The manifest error of law [must] be clearly established. F.D.I.C. v. World Univ. Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992). Meléndez v. Autogermana, Inc., 606 F. Supp. 2d 189, 199 (D.P.R. 2009). 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 On motion for reconsideration, a movant must show that the court misapprehended some material fact or point of law or that newly discovered evidence (not previously available) has come to light. . . . Palmer v. Champion Mortgage, 465 F.3d 24, 30 (1st Cir. 2006). A motion for reconsideration is not a proper vehicle to relitigate or rehash matters already decided by the court. Sánchez-Rodríguez v. Departamento de Correción y Rehabilitación, 537 F. Supp. 2d 295, 297 (D.P.R. 2008); 1 CIVIL 06-1863 (ADC) (JA) 3 2 3 4 5 Villanueva-Méndez v. Nieves-Vázquez, 360 F. Supp. 2d 320, 322 (D.P.R. 2005). 6 Rosario-Méndez v. Hewlett Packard Caribe BV, 573 F. Supp. 2d 558, 560 (D.P.R. 7 2008). The granting of a motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy 8 9 which should be used sparingly. Id. at 562 (quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright, 10 Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1, at 124 11 (2d ed. 1995); citing Ruiz-Rivera v. Pfizer Pharm., LLC, 521 F.3d 76, 81-82 (1st 12 13 14 Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. (2008)). II. 15 DISCUSSION A. 16 Age Discrimination Plaintiff asserts that García Trucking Service president José García made 17 18 admissions in the record . . . that the only employee whose salary, working 19 hours, and benefits were reduced was plaintiff Cruz . . . . (Docket No. 40, at 1, 20 ¶ 4.) As support for this contention, plaintiff cites García s deposition, 21 22 defendant s statement of material facts, and plaintiff s own additional statement 23 of material facts. (Id.) (citing García s deposition; SMUF, paragraphs, 11, 14, 15 24 et seq[.]; AMSF 5, 6. ).1 25 Plaintiff provides no record citation for García s deposition, and no such deposition appears in the record. Moreover, none of the 26 27 28 29 1 Plaintiff does not define SMUF or AMSF. I assume here that plaintiff is referring to defendant s statement of material uncontested facts and to his own statement of such facts in opposition to summary judgment. 1 CIVIL 06-1863 (ADC) (JA) 4 2 3 4 cited paragraphs of the parties respective statements of material facts contains 5 6 anything resembling an admission by defendant that plaintiff was the only 7 employee to suffer adverse employment actions. Thus, plaintiff s motion presents 8 no new evidence on this matter and does not establish that the court 9 misapprehended any point of law. 10 11 Regardless, even if plaintiff could establish that he was the only employee 12 to suffer adverse actions, that fact alone would not suffice to evidence age-based 13 discrimination. As I held in the opinion and order, the plaintiff must introduce 14 15 evidence that the real reason for the employer's action was discrimination. Cruz- 16 Claudio v. García Trucking Serv., Inc., 2009 WL 2240482, at *7 (quoting 17 Villanueva v. Wellesley Coll., 930 F.2d 124, 127-28 (1st Cir. 1991)). Plaintiff has 18 presented no such evidence in his motion for reconsideration. 19 20 Plaintiff also argues that, [i]t is undisputed that . . . harassment was based 21 on protected characteristic [sic], (Docket No. 40, at 2, ¶ 8), but fails to provide 22 a supporting citation. The motive for any adverse actions against plaintiff is far 23 24 from undisputed. (Docket No. 41, at 1-2, ¶ 3.) Indeed, were this fact undisputed 25 there would be no issue to litigate. In actuality, it is upon this issue that plaintiff s 26 entire case hinges and ultimately fails. 27 Plaintiff argues that the court failed to consider evidence demonstrating 28 29 plaintiff s establishment of a prima facie case under the ADEA. (Docket No. 40, 1 CIVIL 06-1863 (ADC) (JA) 5 2 3 4 at 3, ¶ 10.) This argument is superfluous, however, as the court has already held 5 6 that plaintiff succeeded in establishing a prima facie case. It was plaintiff s failure 7 to refute defendants demonstration of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for 8 taking adverse action that doomed plaintiff s case. 9 Cruz-Claudio v. García Trucking Serv., Inc., 2009 WL 2240482, at *10; see, e.g., Meacham v. Knolls 10 11 Atomic Power Lab., 128 S. Ct. 2395, 2400-01 (2008). That is, plaintiff failed to 12 demonstrate both that the reason [given by defendants] was false, and that 13 discrimination was the real reason. Cruz-Claudio v. García Trucking Serv., Inc., 14 15 2009 WL 2240482, at * 8 (quoting St. Mary s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 16 515-16 (1993)). Accordingly, plaintiff s argument that he established a prima 17 facie case does nothing to undermine the decision to grant summary judgment. 18 Plaintiff devotes much argument to whether the defendant s treatment of 19 20 him was adverse, (Docket No. 40, at 2, ¶¶ 5, 6, 7, at 4-5, ¶¶ 12, 13), but this 21 argument is also beside the point. Whether he was treated adversely was not 22 dispositive on summary judgment. The dispositive issue was whether the alleged 23 24 adverse action assuming plaintiff could establish one was causally linked to 25 plaintiff s age. In other words, did plaintiff s age motivate defendant s actions? 26 I held that it did not. 27 Cruz-Claudio v. García Trucking Serv., Inc., 2009 WL 2240482, at *14. Since plaintiff s motion does not present any new evidence or 28 29 assert any errors of law as to that issue, it fails to merit reconsideration. 1 CIVIL 06-1863 (ADC) (JA) 6 2 3 4 B. Retaliation Claim 5 Plaintiff correctly reiterates that he need not establish that his protected 6 7 activity2 was undertaken in response to actual wrongdoing. (Docket No. 40, at 8 3-4, ¶ 11); Fantini v. Salem State Coll., 557 F.3d 22, 32 (1st Cir. 2009). It is 9 indeed enough for him to establish that he had a good faith, reasonable belief 10 11 that the underlying challenged actions of the employer violated the law. Id. 12 (quoting Wimmer v. Suffolk County Police Dep t, 176 F.3d 125, 134 (2d Cir. 1999) 13 (quoting Manoharan, M.D. v. Columbia Univ. Coll. of Physicians & Surgeons, 842 14 15 F.2d 590, 594 (2d Cir. 1988)). Nonetheless, plaintiff still bears the burden of 16 establishing that the adverse action was causally connected to the protected 17 activity. Fantini v. Salem State Coll., 557 F.3d at 32 (citing Marrero v. Goya of 18 P.R., Inc., 304 F.3d 7, 22 (1st Cir. 2002)). As stated above, plaintiff failed at the 19 20 summary judgment stage to establish that any actions taken by defendants 21 against him were motivated by discriminatory animus. He has, moreover, failed 22 to present new evidence or to demonstrate a manifest error of law by the court 23 24 that might militate otherwise. 25 26 27 28 29 2 Protected activity includes a plaintiff s opposition to any discriminatory practice by an employer, or a plaintiff s making a charge, testifying, assisting, or participating in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under the ADEA. 29 U.S.C. § 623(d). 1 CIVIL 06-1863 (ADC) (JA) 7 2 3 4 III. CONCLUSION 5 6 Plaintiff has presented no new evidence that an adverse action by 7 defendants against him was directly caused by either his age or a protected action 8 that he took. 9 Moreover, he has failed to demonstrate that the court misapprehended the law on this issue. Accordingly, plaintiff s motion for 10 11 reconsideration is DENIED. 12 SO ORDERED. 13 At San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 24th of August, 2009 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 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.