Opinion
Civil No. 06-1095 (JAF).
May 4, 2007
OPINION AND ORDER
On March 22, 2007, we issued an Opinion and Order on Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings which dismissed various causes of action that were originally pleaded in this complaint by Plaintiffs Liz Frechel-Rodríguez ("Liz") and her daughter Shelsey Villalobos-Frechel ("Shelsey"). Docket Document No. 104. Others remained intact. Id. Liz and Shelsey allege that Shelsey was sexually harassed by Morales-Sánchez, a janitor at her grade school. Docket Document No. 1. As of today's writing, the following causes of action remain: (1) a claim against Defendant the Puerto Rico Department of Education ("DOE"), alleging violations Of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq. (2000 Supp. 2006), (2) a claim against DOE alleging violations of Commonwealth law, and (3) a claim against Lilliam Maldonado, the principal of Shelsey's elementary school, and Angel Gabriel Morales-Sánchez, a custodian at Shelsey's elementary school, also alleging violations of Commonwealth law. Id. Plaintiffs seek the following relief: (1) an injunction ordering the DOE to take measures to adequately protect Shelsey from being sexually harassed by Morales-Sánchez, (2) $200,000 as compensatory damages for the emotional pain and suffering inflicted upon Shelsey as a result of the alleged incident, (3) $100,000 as compensatory damages for the pain and suffering inflicted upon Liz as a result of the alleged incident, and (4) reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, and other expenses. Id.
Plaintiffs originally asked for other forms of relief as well, but we explained why some of it was not available in our March 22, 2007, Opinion and Order. Docket Document No. 104.
Defendants now file a motion requesting that we reconsider our March 22, 2007, Opinion and Order insofar as it did not also dismiss the Commonwealth law claims Plaintiffs have pleaded against DOE. Docket Document No. 108. In our March 22, 2007, Opinion and Order, we held that Plaintiffs' Title IX action against DOE could proceed because Congress had waived States' — and therefore DOE's — sovereign immunity rights in the context of Title IX lawsuits. Docket Document No. 104. We overlooked Defendants' arguments with respect to DOE's sovereign immunity regarding Plaintiffs' Commonwealth claims, however. Id.
Defendants now remind us that sovereign immunity protects DOE from Plaintiffs' Commonwealth claims, too, and we agree. We may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these Commonwealth claims against DOE without DOE's waiver. The Commonwealth claims should be brought against DOE in local court.
Another pending motion in this case is Plaintiffs' September 5, 2006, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the question of DOE's Eleventh Amendment immunity. Docket Document Nos. 40, 41. We dismiss this motion as moot. Our March 22, 2007, Opinion and Order on Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings has already concluded that DOE is not immune from the instant Title IX lawsuit, Docket Document No. 104, and so Plaintiffs have already secured the relief they sought in the aforementioned summary judgment motion. Docket Document No. 104.
In accordance with the foregoing, we GRANT Defendants' motion that we reconsider our March 22, 2007, Opinion and Order, and dismiss the Commonwealth claims Plaintiffs have leveled against DOE, Docket Document No. 108, and we DENY Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment as moot. Docket Document Nos. 40, 41