Fontanillas-Lopez v. Morel Bauza Cartagena & Dapena LLC
136 F. Supp. 3d 152
D.P.R.2015Background
- Plaintiff Lourdes del Rosario Fontanillas‑Lopez sued her former employer and several individual defendants under Title VII for gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation; the court granted summary judgment for defendants and entered judgment on February 7, 2014.
- Defendants moved for and the court awarded $53,662.50 in attorney fees; plaintiff later challenged that award and the underlying judgment.
- Plaintiff filed motions for reconsideration (Rule 59) and for relief from judgment (Rule 60) after new counsel appeared; some earlier filings were stricken for exceeding page limits and then refiled.
- Plaintiff argued (1) the fee award improperly compensated an in‑house attorney and/or a pro se lawyer (citing Kay v. Ehrler), (2) defendants committed fraud and perjury in their summary judgment submissions, and (3) the court made evidentiary and legal errors at summary judgment.
- The court addressed standards for Rule 59 and Rule 60 relief, finding plaintiff’s motions untimely or failing to meet the high standards for manifest error, newly discovered evidence, fraud on the court, or other exceptional circumstances.
- The court denied both the Rule 59 motion to alter the attorney‑fee award and the Rule 60 motions to set aside the judgment; the fee award to the firm’s in‑house attorney stood.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of attorney‑fee award to firm/in‑house lawyer | Sanfilippo’s fees unlawful under Kay because payment would effectively reward a pro se attorney; no evidence Vazquez incurred fees | Firm is an organization and an in‑house lawyer represents it; Kay does not bar fee awards to organizations represented by their attorneys | Court held fee award proper: law firm is an organization and its in‑house counsel may be compensated |
| Relief under Rule 59 (motion to alter/amend judgment) | Judgment and fee award reflect manifest error of law and new facts warranting reconsideration | Movant failed to show manifest error or newly discovered evidence; motion is mere reargument of rejected theories | Denied: Rule 59 relief not warranted; plaintiff’s arguments were untimely or repetitive |
| Fraud/perjury claim under Rule 60(b)(3) and independent action under Rule 60(d) | Defendants falsified statements and denied bonus payments, hampering plaintiff’s ability to prove claims | Any alleged misstatements were discoverable and did not substantially interfere with litigation; perjury alone insufficient for fraud on the court | Denied: plaintiff failed to meet clear‑and‑convincing standard and show substantial interference or scheme to corrupt judicial process |
| Relief under other Rule 60(b) grounds (mistake, catch‑all 60(b)(6)) | Court made evidentiary and legal mistakes at summary judgment; exceptional circumstances exist | Errors are rehashed earlier arguments; no new evidence or intervening law; Rule 60 not substitute for appeal | Denied: plaintiff reargues prior rulings, no exceptional circumstances or timely basis for relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432 (1991) (an attorney representing himself pro se is not entitled to attorney’s fees; organizations represented by counsel may recover fees)
- Christiansburg v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n, 434 U.S. 412 (1978) (court warned against using hindsight when assessing reasonableness of fee awards and prevailing‑party determinations)
- Roger Edwards, LLC v. Fiddes & Son Ltd., 427 F.3d 129 (1st Cir. 2005) (Rule 60(b)(3) fraud standard: clear and convincing evidence required and fraud must have substantially interfered with ability to litigate)
- George P. Reintjes Co., Inc. v. Riley Stoker Corp., 71 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 1995) (perjury alone does not ordinarily justify independent attack on final judgment)
- Perez‑Perez v. Popular Leasing Rental, Inc., 993 F.2d 281 (1st Cir. 1993) (motions filed after 28 days are generally treated under Rule 60(b))
- Bouret‑Echevarria v. Caribbean Aviation Maintenance Corp., 784 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 2015) (factors for Rule 60(b)(6): timeliness, exceptional circumstances, potential meritorious claim, and prejudice)