Opinion
CIVIL 19-1119 (ADC)
10-14-2022
DAVILAH CRUZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MUNICIPALITY OF LAJAS, et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
S/AIDA M. DELGADO-COLON, United States District Judge.
Before the Court is plaintiffs Davilah Cruz and minor D D's (together, “plaintiffs”) motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 132. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
On September 30, 2021, this Court entered an Opinion and Order granting co-defendant Marcos Martinez's, doing business as El Pinaton, (“Martinez”) motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 86). ECF No. 103. Therein, the Court noted that it was “troubled by plaintiffs' lack of competent evidence and due diligence, disregard for the evidence provided by Martinez in discovery, and indifference to the time and resources taken from the parties and the Court.” Id. at fn. 6.
The factual and procedural background detailed in the September 30, 2021 Opinion and Order (ECF No. 103) is incorporated by reference herein.
Martinez subsequently moved for attorney's fees. ECF No. 110. In his motion, Martinez posited that, though the American Rule usually forecloses a prevailing party from collecting attorney's fees from the loser, such an award is warranted when the losing party acted vexatiously or wantonly. Id. at 5-6. Plaintiffs did not oppose Martinez's motion for attorney's fees. On June 28, 2022, the Court granted Martinez's motion for attorney's fees. ECF No. 128.
Now, plaintiffs move for reconsideration of the order granting attorney's fees. ECF No. 132.
I. Legal Standard
A motion for reconsideration must “either clearly establish a manifest error of law or . . . present newly discovered evidence.” Marks 3 Zet-Ernst Marks GmBh & Co. KG v. Presstek, Inc., 455 F.3d 7, 15 (1st Cir. 2006). “Likewise, a motion for reconsideration should be granted if the court ‘has patently misunderstood a party . . . or has made an error not of reasoning but [of] apprehension.'” Ruiz-Rivera v. Pfizer Pharm., LLC, 521 F.3d 76, 81-82 (1st Cir. 2008) (quoting Sandoval-Diaz v. Sandoval - Orozco, 2005 WL 1501672, at *2 (D.P.R. June 24, 2005)).
II. Discussion
Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the order granting attorney's fees proves none of the above. Plaintiffs do not present new evidence. And, they have not established that the Court committed a manifest error of law.
“Under the well-established American Rule, attorneys' fees are not recoverable by a party unless statutorily or contractually authorized. However, a court possesses inherent equitable powers to award attorneys' fees against a party that has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.” Mullane v. Chambers, 333 F.3d 322, 337-38 (1st Cir. 2003) (cleaned up). Here, the Court finds that plaintiffs acted wantonly. Indeed, as noted above, the Court emphasized in its opinion and order grating summary judgment in favor of Martinez that it was “troubled by plaintiffs' lack of competent evidence and due diligence, disregard for the evidence provided by Martinez in discovery, and indifference to the time and resources taken from the parties and the Court.” ECF No. 103 at fn. 6.
The Court will now, for good measure, expand on this finding:
At every relevant juncture of this case, Martinez stressed that he was not in control of the area where the accident in question in this case occurred - but still, plaintiffs trudged on. In fact, as the Court noted in its opinion and order, plaintiffs did not possess any evidence to show that Martinez was liable, and willfully ignored competent evidence that proved that he was not. ECF No. 103. To add insult to injury, once the Court dismissed all claims against Martinez, plaintiffs submitted a motion for reconsideration advancing unreasonable arguments which the Court denied by explaining trivial matters such as the the difference between singular and plural nouns. ECF No. 114 and 116.
In short, Martinez incurred great financial cost in defending himself from a blind campaign fueled by unsubstantiated claims. Allowing plaintiffs to take refuge behind the shield of the American Rule would not be in the interests of justice in the above captioned case.
To boot, plaintiffs did not oppose Martinez's motion for attorney's fees. As such, the arguments they now bring in their motion for reconsideration come far too late in the game -such a motion “does not provide a vehicle for a party to .. advance arguments that could and should have been presented to the district court prior to [a decision].” Quality Cleaning Products R.C., Inc. v. SCA Tissue North America, LLC, 794 F.3d 200, 208 (1st Cir. 2015) (citing Emmanuel v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local Union No. 25, 426 F.3d 416, 422 (1st Cir. 2005); Aybar v. Crispin-Reyes, 118 F.3d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1997)).
As such, plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration must be denied.
III. Conclusion
Based on all the above, plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 132) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.