Aponte Flecha, Daniel v. Cc1 Limited Partnership, KLAN202300908

Background

Plaintiff Daniel Aponte Flecha filed an age-discrimination and retaliation complaint (Law 100 and Law 115) on October 7, 2022 under the summary labor-procedure (Law 2). He alleged repeated ageist comments, removal of duties, humiliation and threats by supervisor Nelson Creque Torres and comments by Creque’s wife.
The employer (Coca‑Cola / CC1 Limited Partnership) moved to dismiss under Rule 10.2(5); the trial court dismissed the first complaint with prejudice on February 2, 2023 for lack of specificity and failure to state a prima facie case. Aponte did not seek timely reconsideration or appeal from that dismissal.
Aponte filed a second complaint on April 15, 2023 repeating many prior allegations with added dates; it also included allegation 18 asserting post-dismissal retaliation beginning December 10, 2022 (supervisor mocking him weekly and threatening termination because he filed the first complaint).
The trial court dismissed the second complaint in its entirety, applying res judicata / collateral‑estoppel (identity of parties, causes and things) and treating many factual denials as effectively true in its Rule 10.2 analysis.
On appeal the Court of Appeals concluded most of the second complaint was barred by res judicata/impedimento colateral because it repeated the same nucleus of facts resolved by the prior final adjudication, but reversed as to allegation 18 (post‑dismissal retaliation) as a new, non‑barred claim and ordered continuation of summary proceedings limited to that allegation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata / impedimento colateral barred the second complaint	Second complaint contained new facts/dates and post‑judgment events; thus not fully barred	Second complaint repeats same nucleus of facts, parties and claims; prior dismissal with prejudice is an adjudication on the merits that bars re‑litigation	Res judicata/impedimento colateral bars most of the second complaint because identity of parties, causes and things exists; affirmed as to those claims
Whether the trial court improperly resolved factual disputes and credited defendant’s denials when ruling on Rule 10.2(5) motion	Trial court erred by treating employer’s denials as true and deciding merits instead of accepting plaintiff’s allegations as true for Rule 10.2 analysis	Employer maintained dismissal was appropriate because allegations were not sufficiently specific or prima facie	Court held trial court erred to the extent it adjudicated merits and credited defendant’s factual denials, but that error did not change the res judicata outcome for most claims
Whether allegation 18 (post‑dismissal retaliation beginning Dec. 10, 2022) is barred by the prior judgment	Allegation 18 describes a distinct, subsequent retaliatory course of conduct that arose after the first case was resolved and therefore is a new, actionable claim	Employer argued the new allegation is simply more specific/rehashed facts and thus barred	Allegation 18 was not barred: it alleges events occurring after the prior final judgment and states a plausible retaliation claim; remand to continue summary procedure as to that allegation
Effect of dismissal with prejudice under Rule 39.2 and related precedent	Plaintiff contended he could re‑plead or rely on prior allegations to make a prima facie case	Employer argued dismissal with prejudice is an adjudication on the merits and prevents refiling	Court reaffirmed that dismissal with prejudice constitutes an adjudication on the merits and can bar subsequent suits on the same cause of action

Key Cases Cited

Méndez v. Fundación, 165 D.P.R. 253 (2005) (res judicata requires identity of things, causes, parties and quality)
Parrilla v. Rodríguez, 163 D.P.R. 263 (2004) (purpose of res judicata to bring finality and certainty to litigation)
P.R. Wire Prod. v. C. Crespo & Assoc., 175 D.P.R. 139 (2008) (explains impedimento colateral and its limitations)
A & P Gen. Contractors v. Asoc. Caná, 110 D.P.R. 753 (1981) (discusses identity of causes and the offensive/defensive modalities of collateral estoppel)
Montañez v. Hosp. Metropolitano, 157 D.P.R. 96 (2002) (Rule 10.2 dismissal for failure to state a claim addresses the merits)
Pramco CV6, LLC v. Delgado Cruz y otros, 184 D.P.R. 453 (2012) (dismissal with prejudice constitutes an adjudication on the merits)