240701 ORD DENYING GARRIGA MOT FOR RECON VERSION JULY 1, 2024 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

In re: 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, 

as representative of

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO et al., 

Debtors.

1

PROMESA 

Title III 

No. 17 BK 3283-LTS 

(Jointly Administered)

MEMORANDUM ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DOCKET ENTRY NO. 14772

Before the Court is a motion (Docket Entry No. 24817 in Case No. 17-3283) (the 

“Motion”),2 filed by pro se claimant Lizzette Garriga Ortiz (the “Movant”). The Motion appears 

to seek reconsideration of the First Order (A) Granting in Part the Eighty-First Omnibus 

Objection (Non-Substantive) of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico Highways and 

Transportation Authority, and Employees Retirement System of the Government of the 

1 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case 

number and the last four (4) digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as 

applicable, are the (i) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (“Commonwealth”) (Bankruptcy 

Case No. 17-BK-3283-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico 

Sales Tax Financing Corporation (“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK-3284-LTS) 

(Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 8474); (iii) Puerto Rico Highways and 

Transportation Authority (“HTA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK-3567-LTS) (Last Four 

Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3808); (iv) Employees Retirement System of the Government 

of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (“ERS”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK-3566-LTS) 

(Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 9686); (v) Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority

(“PREPA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK-4780-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax 

ID: 3747); and (vi) Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority (“PBA”) (Bankruptcy Case 

No. 19-BK-5523-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3801) (Title III case 

numbers are listed as Bankruptcy Case numbers due to software limitations).

2 All docket entry references are to entries in Case No. 17-3283, unless otherwise 

specified.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:27690 Filed:07/01/24 Entered:07/01/24 14:16:57 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 11
240701 ORD DENYING GARRIGA MOT FOR RECON VERSION JULY 1, 2024 2

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to Deficient Claims Asserting Interests Based on Salary 

Demands, Employment or Services Provided, (B) Approving Form of Notice, and (C) Granting 

Related Relief (Docket Entry No. 14772) (the “Order”), which disallowed Movant’s Proof of 

Claim No. 42345 (the “Claim”) against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the 

“Commonwealth”). 

The Court has carefully considered the Motion and the Objection of the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to Lizzette Garriga Ortiz’s Motion for Reconsideration (Docket 

Entry No. 24882) (the “Response”), filed by the Financial Oversight and Management Board for 

Puerto Rico (the “Oversight Board”).

3

 For the following reasons, the Motion is denied, and the 

Claim remains disallowed. 

BACKGROUND

On June 26, 2018, Movant filed her Claim asserting $60,362.25 dollars in 

liabilities for her accumulated contribution in the Teachers’ Retirement System. (Claim at 3; 

Resp. ¶ 3.) However, the Claim failed to provide information necessary for the Commonwealth 

to reconcile the Claim. (Resp. ¶ 3.) Consistent with the Order Granting in Part and Adjourning 

in Part Debtors’ Motion for Entry of An Order (A) Authorizing Alternative Dispute Resolution 

Procedures, (B) Approving Additional Forms of Notice, (C) Approving Proposed Mailing, and 

(D) Granting Related Relief (Docket Entry No. 8453) (the “Authorized Mailings Order”), the 

Commonwealth sent Movant a letter, substantially in the form of Exhibit 1 to the Authorized 

Mailings Order (the “First Letter”), which informed Movant that the Commonwealth required 

additional information regarding her claim and requested that Movant provide such information 

3 The Court has also carefully considered the certified English translation of the Motion 

filed by the Oversight Board. (See Informative Motion Regarding Submission of 

Certified Translations, Docket Entry No. 24883.)

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:27690 Filed:07/01/24 Entered:07/01/24 14:16:57 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 11
240701 ORD DENYING GARRIGA MOT FOR RECON VERSION JULY 1, 2024 3

by a date certain. (Resp. ¶ 4.) The First Letter also provided that Movant’s failure to timely 

respond and produce additional information regarding her claim would result in the 

Commonwealth objecting to her claim. (Resp. ¶ 4 n.4.) Movant failed to submit a timely 

response to the letter. (Resp. ¶ 4.) 

On October 24, 2019, the Commonwealth, together with the Puerto Rico 

Highways and Transportation Authority (“HTA”) and the Employees Retirement System of the 

Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (“ERS”) (collectively the “Debtors”), filed 

the Eighty-First Omnibus Objection (Non-Substantive) of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,

Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority, and the Employees Retirement System of 

the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to Deficient Claims Asserting Interests 

Based on Salary Demands, Employment or Services Provided (Docket Entry No. 8968) (the 

“Eighty-First Omnibus Objection”), which objected to numerous claims, including Movant’s 

Claim, for failure to provide information necessary to enable the Commonwealth to reconcile the 

claims. Movant was served with a copy of the notice attached to the Eighty-First Omnibus 

Objection as Exhibit C (the “Notice”) along with a copy of Exhibit A4 to the Eighty-First 

Omnibus Objection. (Resp. ¶ 5; see also Supplemental Certificate of Service, Docket Entry No 

9585 Ex. D (providing that Movant was served by first class mail with a copy of the Notice at the 

address on file).)5

 The Notice was served in English and Spanish and stated that the Debtors

were seeking to disallow the claims listed in the attached Exhibit A. (Resp. ¶ 5; Notice at 1.) 

4 The Exhibit A attached to the Notice was identical to Exhibit A to the Eighty-First 

Omnibus Objection, which listed the names of claimants along with the corresponding 

proof of claim numbers of claims that were allegedly deficient.

5 Exhibit A to the Eighty-First Omnibus objection stated that the Movant’s address on file 

was “PO Box 3501, PMB 218, Juana Diaz, PR 00795,” which is the same address 

provided by Movant in the Claim and the Motion. (Claim at 2; Mot. at 1.)

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:27690 Filed:07/01/24 Entered:07/01/24 14:16:57 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 11
240701 ORD DENYING GARRIGA MOT FOR RECON VERSION JULY 1, 2024 4

Furthermore, the Notice provided that the deadline to respond to the Eighty-First Omnibus 

Objection was November 26, 2019, and instructed claimants to contact Prime Clerk, LLC6 at a 

provided toll-free number or email if they had any questions. (Resp. ¶¶ 5-6; Notice at 2-6.) 

Exhibit A to the Notice listed Movant’s Claim under the name “Ortiz, Lizzette Garriga” along 

with Movant’s address and the number of her Claim. (Notice Ex. A at 57.) Movant did not file a 

response to the Eighty-First Omnibus Objection. (Resp. ¶ 8.)

On October 6, 2020, the Debtors filed the Notice of Presentment of Proposed 

Order (A) Granting in Part the Eighty-First Omnibus Objection (Non-Substantive) of the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority, and 

Employees Retirement System of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to 

Deficient Claims Asserting Interests Based on Salary Demands, Employment or Services 

Provided, (B) Approving Form of Notice for Claims to Be Set for Hearing, and (C) Granting 

Related Relief (Docket Entry No. 14474) (the “Notice of Presentment”), which provided notice 

that the claimants associated with the claims listed in the attached Exhibit C, which included 

Movant’s Claim, had failed to respond to the Eighty-First Omnibus Objection. (Notice of 

Presentment at 5; Resp. ¶ 10.) Like Exhibit A to the Notice, Exhibit C to the Notice of 

Presentment listed Movant’s name as “Ortiz, Lizzette Garriga” along with Movant’s address and 

the number of her Claim. (Notice of Presentment, Exhibit C at 54.) Movant was served with a 

copy of the Notice of Presentment. (See Certificate of Service, Docket Entry No 14589, Ex. E at 

7-8; Resp. ¶ 10.) Movant did not file a response to the Notice of Presentment. The Court issued 

the Order on October 22, 2020, disallowing Movant’s Claim, among others. Approximately two 

years and nine months after the entry of the Order, Movant filed this Motion. 

6 Prime Clerk, LLC is now known as Kroll Restructuring Associates.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:27690 Filed:07/01/24 Entered:07/01/24 14:16:57 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 11
240701 ORD DENYING GARRIGA MOT FOR RECON VERSION JULY 1, 2024 5

DISCUSSION

Movant does not appear to dispute that she received the First Letter, the Notice, 

and the Notice of Presentment in the mail, nor does Movant dispute that her address and proof of 

claim number listed in Exhibit A to the Notice and Exhibit C to the Notice of Presentment are 

correct. Instead, Movant argues that she did not respond to the Eighty-First Omnibus Objection 

because her name was incorrectly listed on Exhibit A to the Notice and Exhibit C to the Notice 

of Presentment as “Ortiz, Lizzette Garriga” instead of “Garriga Ortiz, Lizzette.” (Mot. at 2.) 

Therefore, Movant argues, whenever she searched for her Claim within the list of names in 

Exhibit A to the Notice or Exhibit C to the Notice of Presentment, she searched under “Garriga,” 

her paternal last name, and not “Ortiz,” her maternal last name.7 (Mot. at 2.) In support of her 

argument, Movant attaches documents that appear to be from her served copy of the Notice of 

Presentment, which lists her name as “Ortiz, Lizzette Garriga” among a list of other names, as 

well as on a page on its own. (Mot. Ex. 1 at 4-5.) Based on the incorrect ordering of her last 

names, Movant requests that this Court reconsider its Order more than two years and nine 

months after its issuance. 

While Movant does not specify the legal basis under which she seeks 

reconsideration of the Order, the Court finds that Movant is either time-barred from asserting 

relief or has failed to meet her burden under the applicable standards. First, because Movant 

waited two years and nine months to file the Motion, she is time-barred from seeking relief under 

7 Puerto Ricans generally follow the Latin American naming tradition of a two-part 

surname consisting of the paternal surname followed by the maternal surname. See

generally, Yvonne M. Cherena Pacheco, Latino Surnames: Formal and Informal Forces 

in the United States Affecting the Retention and Use of the Maternal Surname, 18 T. 

Marshall L. Rev. 1 (1992). The use of both surnames—in the correct order—is not only 

culturally important but is also “essential to self-identification.” Id. at 11.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:27690 Filed:07/01/24 Entered:07/01/24 14:16:57 Desc: Main

Document Page 5 of 11
240701 ORD DENYING GARRIGA MOT FOR RECON VERSION JULY 1, 2024 6

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e), 60(b)(1), 60(b)(2), and 60(b)(3). See Fed. R. Civ. P.

59(e) (“A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the 

judgment.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c) (providing that a motion under subsections (1), (2), or (3) of 

Rule 60(b), must be made within one year of the challenged order).8 Similarly, Movant cannot 

seek relief under section 502(j) of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 502(j),

because she failed to file her motion for reconsideration within one year and, even if the motion 

were timely, Movant cannot meet her burden to show “cause” under section 502(j). Finally,

Movant fails to meet her burden to be granted relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

60(b)(4) or 60(b)(5).

Relief under section 502(j)

To the extent Movant seeks relief under section 502(j) of the Bankruptcy Code, 

her motion is untimely and therefore is denied. “While § 502(j) provides that ‘a claim that has 

been allowed or disallowed may be reconsidered for cause,’ it does not grant a court power to 

reconsider a claim at any time.” Pleasant v. TLC Liquidation Trust (In re Tender Loving Care 

Heath Servs., Inc.), 562 F.3d 158, 163 (2d Cir. 2009). Rule 9024 of the Federal Rules of 

Bankruptcy Procedure provides that the time limitations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 

apply to motions for reconsideration except that a motion for “reconsideration of an order 

allowing or disallowing a claim against the estate entered without a contest is not subject to the 

one-year limitation prescribed in Rule 60(c)[.]” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 (emphasis added). 

While the phrase “entered without a contest” is not defined by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy 

8

 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are made applicable here under section 310 of the 

Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (“PROMESA”) and 

rule 9023 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. PROMESA is codified at 48 

U.S.C. § 2101 et seq.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:27690 Filed:07/01/24 Entered:07/01/24 14:16:57 Desc: Main

Document Page 6 of 11
240701 ORD DENYING GARRIGA MOT FOR RECON VERSION JULY 1, 2024 7

Procedure, courts have held that a “contest” to a claim arises once an objection to the claim is 

filed. See, e.g., In re Tender Loving Care Health Servs., Inc., 562 F.3d at 162; Ga. Dep’t. of 

Revenue v. Mouzon Enters., Inc. (In re Mouzon Enters., Inc.), 610 F.3d 1329, 1333 (11th Cir. 

2010). Therefore, any motion for reconsideration of an order allowing or disallowing a claim 

after an objection to the claim has been filed is subject to a one-year time limitation. See In re 

Wyatt, 368 B.R. 99, 104 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2007) (holding that a motion to reconsider an order 

disallowing a claim under section 502(j) was untimely where it was filed more than a year after 

entry of the order and the claim had been previously objected to by the debtor); In re Mouzon 

Enters., Inc., 610 F.3d at 1335 (holding that a motion for reconsideration of an order resolving a 

claim objection is subject to the one-year limitation period of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy 

Procedure 9024); In re Tender Loving Care Health Servs., Inc., 562 F.3d at 163 (holding that a 

bankruptcy court erred in reconsidering its order resolving an objection to a claim under section

502(j) more than one year after the order was entered). Here, because Movant filed the Motion

seeking reconsideration of an order disallowing a contested claim over a year after the entry of 

the Order, the Motion is untimely. 

Furthermore, even if the Motion could be considered timely, it does not establish 

“cause” to reconsider the disallowance of her Claim under section 502(j). In reconsidering the 

disallowance of a claim under section 502(j), courts in the First Circuit engage in a two-step 

process: (1) they consider whether there is “a showing of cause for reconsideration”; and (2) they 

make “a determination of the claim according to the equities of the case.” Mun. of Carolina v. 

Gonzalez (In re Gonzalez), 490 B.R. 642, 651 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). Since 

“cause” as required by section 502(j) is not defined, “the bankruptcy court is given wide 

discretion in determining what constitutes adequate cause for the reconsideration of a claim.” Id.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:27690 Filed:07/01/24 Entered:07/01/24 14:16:57 Desc: Main

Document Page 7 of 11
240701 ORD DENYING GARRIGA MOT FOR RECON VERSION JULY 1, 2024 8

(citation omitted). Courts in the First Circuit have, in considering section 502(j) motions, 

borrowed the standards applicable to motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See, 

e.g., id. at 651-52; In re Funez, No. 12-01737 BKT, 2013 WL 2948920, at *1 (Bankr. D.P.R. 

June 14, 2013). 

Here, the only standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) that may be 

applicable to the Motion are Rules 60(b)(1), 60(b)(4), and 60(b)(6). For the reasons discussed 

below, Movant cannot meet her burden under Rule 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(6). Similarly, Movant 

cannot show excusable neglect warranting relief under the Rule 60(b)(1) standard. Rule 60(b)(1) 

allows an order to be set aside for “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Excusable neglect encompasses “inadvertence, mistake, or carelessness,” 

and a determination of excusable neglect requires an equitable analysis by the court. See

Nansamba v. N. Shore Med. Ctr., Inc., 727 F.3d 33, 39 (1st Cir. 2013). Generally, relief under 

Rule 60(b)(1) is reserved for “instances where error is due to failure of attorneys or other agents 

to act on behalf of their clients, not where the client's own internal procedures are at fault.”

Greenspun v. Bogan, 492 F.2d 375, 382 (1st Cir. 1974). Courts have denied motions seeking 

relief under 60(b)(1) in cases where a party has received multiple notices regarding a proceeding 

and failed to respond or attend. See id. at 383 (affirming denial of corporation’s Rule 60(b)(1) 

motion to reopen a settlement judgment where the corporation received numerous formal notices 

regarding the litigation but nevertheless failed to participate in the litigation); Associated Int’l 

Ins. Co. v. Crawford, 182 F.R.D. 623, 626-27 (D. Colo. 1998) (holding that defendant’s failure 

to respond to numerous court filings and a letter from plaintiff did not constitute “excusable 

neglect”). 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:27690 Filed:07/01/24 Entered:07/01/24 14:16:57 Desc: Main

Document Page 8 of 11
240701 ORD DENYING GARRIGA MOT FOR RECON VERSION JULY 1, 2024 9

Movant received multiple notices informing her that her Claim was deficient, and 

that the Commonwealth was seeking to disallow her Claim. (See Resp. ¶¶ 4-10.) Though

Movant’s Claim was incorrectly listed under her maternal last name on Exhibit A of the Notice 

and Exhibit C of the Notice of Presentment, her first name and paternal last name were listed, her 

correct address was listed, and her correct proof of claim number was listed. (See Notice Ex. A 

at 57; Notice of Presentment Ex. C at 54.) Moreover, to the extent that Movant was confused by 

the notices or had trouble identifying her claim in the attached exhibits, she could have called or 

emailed the contact information provided. Movant’s failure to respond to the notices or seek 

relief from the disallowance of her claim for nearly three years is not excusable neglect under 

Rule 60(b)(1). See Greenspun, 492 F.2d at 383. For this reason, and for the reasons explained in 

the section below, Movant cannot meet her burden to show “cause” under section 502(j). 

Relief under Rule 60(b)(4)

Movant has not met her burden of showing that the Order is void and that relief is 

thus warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4). A judgment is only “void” under 

Rule 60(b)(4) “in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a certain type of 

jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or the 

opportunity to be heard.” United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 271 (2010). 

Movant has not raised any jurisdictional challenges to the Order and, to the extent Movant seeks 

relief under Rule 60(b)(4) for a lack of notice, she is unable to demonstrate a due process 

violation. 

An individual need not receive actual notice to be afforded due process. Jones v. 

Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 226 (2006). Rather, “[d]ue process requires notice ‘reasonably 

calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:27690 Filed:07/01/24 Entered:07/01/24 14:16:57 Desc: Main

Document Page 9 of 11
240701 ORD DENYING GARRIGA MOT FOR RECON VERSION JULY 1, 2024 10

and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’” United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 

559 U.S. at 272. 

Here, the Commonwealth’s efforts in providing Movant notice were sufficient to 

afford her due process. The Commonwealth sent Movant three separate notices alerting her that 

her Claim was deficient and potentially subject to disallowance. While both Exhibit A of the 

Notice and Exhibit C of the Notice of Presentment incorrectly listed Movant’s Claim by her 

maternal last name, instead of her paternal last name, both lists included her personal address and 

her correct proof of claim number. (See Notice, Ex. A at 57; Notice of Presentment, Exhibit C at 

54.) These notices, along with the First Letter, were “reasonably calculated, under all the 

circumstances, to apprise [Movant] of the pendency of the action and afford [Movant] an 

opportunity to [respond to the Commonwealth’s objection].” See United Student Aid Funds, 

Inc., 559 U.S. at 272. Thus, the Order is not “void” within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(4).

Relief under Rule 60(b)(6)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) “is designed as a catch-all, and relief 

under that subsection ‘is only appropriate where subsections (1) through (5) do not apply.’” 

Claremont Flock Corp. v. Alm, 281 F.3d 297, 299 (1st Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). A party 

seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6) “must show extraordinary circumstances suggesting that the 

party is faultless in the delay.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 

U.S. 380, 393 (1993). Even “if a party is [only] partly to blame for the delay, relief must be 

sought within one year under subsection (1) and the party’s neglect must be excusable.” Id. 

Here, Movant cannot show that she is blameless in the delay of filing her Motion. 

The Commonwealth sent—and Movant does not dispute that she received—at least three 

separate notices alerting her that her Claim was deficient, and that the Commonwealth was 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:27690 Filed:07/01/24 Entered:07/01/24 14:16:57 Desc: Main

Document Page 10 of 11
240701 ORD DENYING GARRIGA MOT FOR RECON VERSION JULY 1, 2024 11

seeking to disallow her Claim. (See Resp. ¶¶ 4-10.) Movant’s failure to carefully inspect the 

notices she received, or call the provided contact information with any questions or concerns,

makes her at least partly to blame for her delay in filing the Motion nearly three years after the 

entry of the Order. Thus, Movant is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6). 

The Court finds that Movant has failed to establish a basis for reconsideration 

under any potentially applicable standard. Accordingly, the Motion is denied and the Claim 

remains disallowed. Because the Commonwealth’s confirmed plan of adjustment includes 

provisions specific to pension benefits and Movant’s Claim may have concerned benefits 

accumulated in the Teachers’ Retirement System, the Court directs counsel for the Oversight 

Board to communicate with Movant regarding what, if any, benefits she is entitled to receive 

under the Teachers’ Retirement System. 

This Order resolves Docket Entry No. 24817 in Case No. 17-3283.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2024

 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

United States District Judge

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:27690 Filed:07/01/24 Entered:07/01/24 14:16:57 Desc: Main

Document Page 11 of 11