In re: Melissa Alvarado Jimenez and Wilfrido Torres Rivas v. Golden Arch Development Corp., Nino Rotondi, Darío Luksemberg, ABC Corporation, John Doe, and Jane Doe

Opinion

1 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 2

4 IN RE: CASE NO. 11-09445 BKT Chapter 13 5 MELISSA ALVARADO JIMENEZ 6

7 Debtor 8 MELISSA ALVARADO JIMENEZ and Adversary No. 12-00430 BKT 9 WILFRIDO TORRES RIVAS 10 Plaintiffs 11 vs. 12 GOLDEN ARCH DEVELOPMENT 13 CORP., NINO ROTONDI, DARÍO LUKSEMBERG, ABC CORPORATION, 14 JOHN DOE, and JANE DOE 15 Defendants FILED & ENTERED ON 04/09/15 16

18 ORDER 19 Before this Court is a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Removal filed by Melissa 20 Alvarado Jimenez (“Ms. Alvarado”) and Wilfrido Torres Rivas (“Mr. Torres” and collectively 21 with Ms. Alvarado “Plaintiffs”) [Dkt. No. 95], and Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration 22 filed by Golden Arch Development Corp. (“Defendant”) [Dkt. No. 100]. For the reasons set 23 24 forth below, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration and/or Removal [Dkt. No. 95] is DENIED. 25 On December 28, 2012, Plaintiffs filed this adversary proceeding. In their complaint,

1 1 Plaintiffs plead causes of action for and/or under: (1) Retaliation; (2) 29 L.P.R.A. § 150; (3) 42 2 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1); (4) the United States Constitution; (5) the Constitution of the 3 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; (6) 31 L.P.R.A. § 5141; (7) 31 L.P.R.A. § 5142; and (8) Mr. 4 Torres’ economic anxiety, pain, and emotional anguish. Previous to this matter, Plaintiffs had 5 filed a complaint against the same defendants before Judge José A. Fusté of the United States 6 7 District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (“District Court”). Said matter was filed on 8 February 25, 2011. Every single cause of action in this adversary proceeding was alleged in the 9 District Court proceeding. On April 4, 2012, the District Court entered a final judgment 10 dismissing the Plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice. 11 12 It appears evident that Plaintiffs are disregarding the District Court’s judgment, and are 13 attempting to take a second bite at the apple. “The doctrine of res judicata promotes the goals of 14 fairness and efficiency by preventing vexatious or repetitive litigation.” Caballero-Rivera v. 15 Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 276 F.3d 85, 86 (1st Cir. 2002). “Federal res judicata principles 16 govern the res judicata effect of a judgment entered in a prior federal suit.” In re Iannochino, 242 17 18 F.3d 36, 41 (1st Cir. 2001). For the District Court’s final judgement to bar the Plaintiffs’ current 19 claims there must be: “(1) a final judgment on the merits in an earlier suit, (2) sufficient 20 identicality between the causes of action asserted in the earlier and later suits, and (3) sufficient 21 identicality between the parties in the two suits.” In re Iannochino, 242 F.3d 36, 43 (1st Cir. 22 23 2001) (citing Mass. School of Law v. American Bar Assoc., 142 F.3d 26, 37 (1st Cir.1998)). In 24 the matter before this Court, “all three factors are so clearly present that only a brief discussion 25 of them is necessary.” Caballero-Rivera, 276 F.3d at 87. First, a “voluntary dismissal with

2 1 || prejudice is ordinarily deemed a final judgment that satisfies the res judicata criterion.” Unite States v. Cunan, 156 F.3d 110, 114 Uist Cir. 1998). On April 4, 2012, the District Court entere 3 its final judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs complaint with prejudice. Second, by the causes o 4 5 action in the instant case were all contained in the previous suit. Third, it is apparent that the tw 6 || suits contain the same parties. Thus, the doctrine of res judicata precludes the Plaintiffs’ claims. 7 WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration and/o 8 Removal [Dkt. No. 95] is DENIED. 9 10 In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 9" day of April, 2015.

14 Brian K. Tester 15 U.S. Bankruptcy Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25