Opinion
Civil No. 04-1318 (JAF).
September 19, 2007
ORDER
Defendants, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Department of Education, Dr. César Rey-Hernández, Elsie Trinidad-Vázquez, and Dr. Edna Rosa-Colón, bring this motion for reconsideration of our February 9, 2007, order awarding Plaintiff Ada I. Carmona-Rivera $9,756.25 in attorneys' fees under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (2006). Docket Document Nos. 185, 186-1. For the reasons stated below, we deny Defendants' motion.
I. Factual Background
We set forth a detailed factual background of this case in our February 9, 2007, order. See Docket Document No. 185. Here, we summarize the facts relevant to the present motion.
On April 14, 2004, Plaintiff filed a complaint in federal district court alleging, inter alia, violations of the ADA.Docket Document No. 1. Plaintiff, a disabled teacher, alleged that Defendants failed to provide her with necessary accommodations and assistance. Id. On May 11, 2004, Plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction requiring Defendants to comply with reasonable accommodation agreements already existing between the parties. Docket Document No. 10. On June 30, 2004, the parties entered into a partial settlement agreement in which Defendants agreed to some of Plaintiff's requests. Docket Document No. 43. On July 13, 2004, we approved the terms of the partial settlement agreement and found that the agreement rendered Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction moot. Docket Document Nos. 50, 51.
On July 22, 2004, Plaintiff moved for an order compelling Defendants to comply with a modified version of the settlement agreement. Docket Document No. 53. In her motion, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants had breached the original settlement agreement and privately proposed new terms to Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff requested us to order Defendants to comply with their proposed terms. Id. However, the motion was terminated on October 13, 2004, and the parties never formally adopted a new agreement, nor did we ever approve one.
On August 15, 2005, we granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, finding, inter alia, that the settlement agreement had rendered Plaintiff's remaining ADA claims moot. Docket Document No. 171. Plaintiff appealed this order, Docket Document No. 175, and the First Circuit affirmed, Carmona-Rivera v. Puerto Rico, 464 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2006).
In early December 2006, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants in Puerto Rico court. Docket Document No. 186-2. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the complaint on December 27, 2006. Docket Document No. 186-3.
On February 9, 2007, we awarded Plaintiff $9,756.25 in attorneys' fees for time spent litigating claims on which she prevailed by way of the partial settlement. Docket Document No. 185.
II. Analysis
Courts entertain motions for reconsideration "if they seek to correct manifest errors of law or fact, present newly — discovered evidence, or when there is an intervening change in the law." Lima-Rivera v. UHS of P.R., Inc., No. 04-1798, 2005 WL 2095786, at *1 (D.P.R. Aug. 30, 2005) (citing Jorge Rivera Surillo Co. v. Falconer Glass Indus., Inc., 37 F.3d 25, 29 (1st Cir. 1994)). Plaintiffs have made no showing, nor do we find, that any of these circumstances are present here.
Defendants raise four arguments for reconsideration: (1) equity should prevent Plaintiff from obtaining attorneys' fees; (2) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has Eleventh Amendment immunity; (3) Plaintiff cannot collect attorneys' fees against Defendants under the ADA because Defendants are not Plaintiff's employers; and (4) we incorrectly calculated Plaintiff's attorneys' fees by including time spent litigating issues on which Plaintiff did not prevail.
Defendants raise two equitable arguments, neither of which compels us to reconsider our original ruling. First, Defendants argue that Plaintiff is estopped from claiming status as a prevailing party under the settlement agreement because she requested a new settlement agreement after Defendants failed to comply with the original agreement. Docket Document No. 186-1. Defendants do not explain, nor do we see, why this represents wrongful conduct. Second, Defendants argue that Plaintiff wrongfully filed a complaint in Puerto Rico court in early December 2006, that restated claims already denied by the this court and by the First Circuit. Id. However, Defendants have presented no evidence that Plaintiff was unreasonable in bringing her complaint in state court. Cf. Cruz v. Savage, 896 F.2d 626, 631 (1st Cir. 1990) ("[I]f an attorney's conduct in multiplying proceedings is unreasonable . . . sanctions may be imposed."). Accordingly, Defendants' equitable arguments fail.
Next, Defendants assert that Eleventh Amendment immunity precludes an assessment of attorneys' fees against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Docket Document No. 186-1. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar grants of prospective injunctive relief, Ex-parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), nor does it bar awards of attorneys' fees ancillary to grants of prospective injunctive relief, Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 278 (1998). As we determined in our previous order, the settlement in the present case was functionally equivalent to an award of injunctive relief to Plaintiff. Docket Document No. 185. Therefore, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar an award of attorneys' fees ancillary to the settlement agreement. See Tonya K. by Diane K. v. Board of Educ. of Chicago, 847 F.2d 1243, 1245-46 (7th Cir. 1988).
Next, Defendants contend that Plaintiff cannot collect attorneys' fees under the ADA because Defendants were not the Plaintiff's employers. Docket Document No. 186-1. However, recovery of attorneys' fees is not limited to claims against employers; the ADA authorizes the award of attorneys' fees to the "prevailing party." 42 U.S.C. § 12205. Therefore, we find that the ADA permits Plaintiff to recover attorneys' fees.
Finally, Defendants argue that this court incorrectly calculated the attorneys' fee award by including hours Plaintiff's attorney spent litigating claims on which Plaintiff did not ultimately prevail. In our previous order, we evaluated Plaintiff's time entries, and denied fees for unsuccessful claims. Docket Document No. 185. Defendants do not point out any specific ways in which they disagree with our assessment of Plaintiff's time log. Therefore, we decline to reconsider our original calculation of Plaintiff's attorneys' fees.