Molina-Olivo v. Experience Works Inc., No. 3:2009cv01839 - Document 13 (D.P.R. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 10 MOTION for Reconsideration. We hereby VACATE our prior order granting Plaintiff's motion for dismissal without prejudice (Docket No. 8 ). We DENY Plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal (Docket No. 7 ). We GRANT Defendant's motion for dismissal (Docket No. 4 ). We DISMISS Plaintiff's claims WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Chief Judge Jose A Fuste on 12/10/09.(mrj)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO OLGA MOLINA-OLIVO, Plaintiff, Civil No. 09-1839 (JAF) v. EXPERIENCE WORKS, INC., Defendant. 11 12 OPINION AND ORDER 13 Defendant, Experience Works, Inc., moves this court under Federal Rule of Civil 14 Procedure 59(e) to reconsider our prior order (Docket No. 8) granting dismissal without 15 prejudice to Plaintiff, Olga Molina-Olivo. (Docket No. 10.) Defendant argues that the prior 16 disposition was a manifest error of law and should be amended to a dismissal with prejudice. 17 (Docket Nos. 11; 12.) 18 I. 19 Factual and Procedural Synopsis 20 Plaintiff filed her first action against Defendant in this court on April 7, 2009, alleging 21 violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e 2000e-17, and 22 various Puerto Rico laws. See Molina-Olivo v. Experience Works, Inc., Civil No. 09-1331 (JP) 23 ( Molina-Olivo I ). The court granted summary judgment to the Defendant and dismissed all Civil No. 09-1839 (JAF) -2- 1 of Plaintiff s claims with prejudice on June 17, 2009. Plaintiff appealed that decision to the 2 First Circuit, though she eventually withdrew her appeal voluntarily. Before the district court 3 issued its final order, Plaintiff filed a parallel action in Commonwealth court claiming 4 violations of applicable labor laws without citing any particular federal or Commonwealth 5 law. (Docket No. 1-2 at 4.) Defendant removed that case to this court on August 24, 2009 6 (Docket No. 1), and filed a motion for dismissal or summary judgment in the alternative. 7 (Docket No. 4). In its motion for dismissal, Defendant argued that Plaintiff s claims had been 8 presented in Molina-Olivo I and were, thus, barred by res judicata. (Id.) While Defendant s 9 motion was pending, Plaintiff moved for voluntary dismissal of her claims without prejudice. 10 (Docket No. 7.) Four days later, we granted Plaintiff s motion without ruling on Defendant s 11 pending motion. (Docket No. 8.) 12 II. 13 Rule 59(e) Standard 14 Rule 59(e) allows any to party to move the court to alter or amend a judgment within ten 15 days of its entry. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Case law has expanded upon the sparse text of the rule 16 to require that movants clearly establish a manifest error of law or . . . present newly 17 discovered evidence. FDIC v. World Univ. Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992). Civil No. 09-1839 (JAF) -3- 1 III. 2 Analysis 3 Defendant argues that our granting Plaintiff s motion for voluntary dismissal without 4 prejudice was a manifest error of law on three grounds: (1) Plaintiff did not meet the standard 5 for dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41; (2) the order was 6 entered before the end of the ten-day period provided by the Local Rules, see L.Cv.R. 7(b), in 7 which to object to a motion; and (3) since Plaintiff s claim was precluded under res judicata 8 doctrine, Defendant s motion to dismiss should have been granted. (Docket No. 11.) 9 Res judicata doctrine dictates that a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes 10 the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that 11 action. Coors Brewing Co. v. Méndez-Torres, 562 F.3d 3, 8 (1st Cir. 2009). Federal law of 12 res judicata governs where both the potentially precluding suit and the potentially precluded 13 suit were litigated in federal courts. Mass. Sch. of Law v. ABA, 142 F.3d 26, 37 (1st Cir. 14 1998). A court must find the presence of three conditions before it applies res judicata to 15 dismiss a claim: (1) a final judgment on the merits in an earlier suit, (2) sufficient identicality 16 between the causes of action asserted in the earlier and later suits, and (3) sufficient identicality 17 between the parties in the two suits. Coors, 562 F.3d at 8 (citation omitted). Finality for res 18 judicata purposes is equivalent to finality of a judgment for purposes of appeal. See AVX 19 Corp. v. Cabot Corp., 424 F.3d 28, 32-33 (1st Cir. 2005). Therefore, a judgment is final when 20 it ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the Civil No. 09-1839 (JAF) -4- 1 judgment. Whitfield v. Municipality of Fajardo, 564 F.3d 40, 45 (1st Cir. 2009) (citation 2 omitted). A decision retains its finality for preclusion purposes even while an appeal from 3 that decision is pending. See Deposit Bank v. Frankfort, 191 U.S. 499 (1913); In re Kane, 254 4 F.3d 325, 328 (1st Cir. 2001). Causes of action are sufficiently identical if they arise out of a 5 common nucleus of operative facts. Mass. Sch. of Law, 142 F.3d at 38. 6 In the present case, the doctrine of res judicata precluded Plaintiff s claims from being 7 tried before this court. First, the court s order in Molina-Olivo I was a final judgment on the 8 merits because it was a summary judgment disposing of all claims; the pendency of an appeal 9 does not affect the application of res judicata. Second, both Molina-Olivo I and the present case 10 arose from the same alleged incidents of sexual harrassment in the workplace. The present 11 claims of violations of applicable labor laws are sufficiently identical to the Title VII and 12 Puerto Rico law claims in Molina-Olivo I. Even if the claims in this case were based on 13 different statutes, these claims should have been brought along with the other discrimination and 14 harassment claims in Molina-Olivo I. Third, the parties are clearly identical. 15 Defendant timely raised res judicata in its motion for dismissal a motion that preceded 16 Plaintiff s motion for voluntary dismissal. (Docket No. 4.) The claims in the present suit were 17 clearly precluded by res judicata. Therefore, our entry of a judgment of dismissal without 18 prejudice was a manifest error of law. As we have reconsidered our motion on this basis, it is 19 unnecessary to consider the two additional bases raised by Defendant for amending our 20 judgment to a dismissal with prejudice. Civil No. 09-1839 (JAF) -5- 1 IV. 2 Conclusion 3 For the reasons stated above, we GRANT Defendant s motion for reconsideration 4 (Docket No. 10). We hereby VACATE our prior order granting Plaintiff s motion for dismissal 5 without prejudice (Docket No. 8). We DENY Plaintiff s motion for voluntary dismissal 6 (Docket No. 7). We GRANT Defendant s motion for dismissal (Docket No. 4). We DISMISS 7 Plaintiff s claims WITH PREJUDICE. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 10 th day of December, 2009. 10 11 12 s/José Antonio Fusté JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE Chief 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.