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.

PROMESA

Title III

No. 17-BK 3283-LTS

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

COMES NOW Grisell Cuevas-Rodríguez (hereinafter “Ms. Cuevas” or the 

“Plaintiff”) through the undersigned attorney, and very respectfully STATES and PRAYS 

as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. On October 17th, 2017, Ms. Cuevas filed, pro se1, a complaint before the United 

States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico wherein she asserted several 

causes of action against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Superintendent and 

several officers of the Puerto Rico Police Department both in their official and in 

their personal capacities (hereinafter referred to jointly as the “Defendants”). The

aforementioned case is captioned Cuevas-Rodriguez v. Soto-Lopez, Civil No. 17-

2249 (GAG)(SCC).

 

1

 After the filing of the Complaint, the Court appointed the undersigned to represent the Plaintiff pro bono.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3268 Filed:06/06/18 Entered:06/06/18 17:16:11 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 8
2

2. Specifically, Ms. Cuevas sustains that during her employment with the Puerto Rico 

Police she has been subjected to an ongoing pattern of discrimination and retaliation 

in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; Puerto 

Rico Law No. 100 of June 30, 1959, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, § 146 et seq.; Puerto 

Rico Law No. 115 of December 20, 1991, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, § 194a et seq.; 

Articles 1802 and 1803 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, §§ 

5141 and 5142; and the Constitution of the Commonwealth. The total compensation 

claimed, not including attorney’s fees and legal costs, is in an amount not less than 

$1,500,000.2

3. On March 12, 2018, the Defendants3filed a Notice of Stay and of Procedures for 

Filing Motions for Relief from the Automatic Stay in the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico’s Title III Case wherein they moved the Court to stay the above-referenced 

proceedings pursuant to of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic 

Stability Act (“PROMESA”).

4. In compliance with the Third Amended Notice, Case Management and 

Administrative Procedures4issued in the above-captioned case, on March 23, 2018, 

Ms. Cuevas sent a Lift Stay Notice to the Financial Oversight and Management 

 

2

 This amount does not include the doubling of damages as required by Puerto Rico Law 100, 

supra, which provides that if there is a finding of discrimination, the amount of damages awarded 

to the plaintiff as a result of the alleged discrimination shall be doubled. P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, § 

146.

3 Except for co-defendant Noel Torres-Roca who had not been served with a summons and a 

copy of the Complaint at that time.

4

 At that time, the Fourth Amended Notice, Case Management and Administrative Procedures

had not been issued.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3268 Filed:06/06/18 Entered:06/06/18 17:16:11 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 8
3

Board for Puerto Rico and to the Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory 

Authority informing them of her intention to seek relief from the automatic stay.

5. After various electronic communications, and after having conferred by phone with 

counsel for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Claudia A. Juan García, Esq., the 

Commonwealth did not agree to voluntarily lift the automatic stay.

6. However, as discussed herein in further detail, this Honorable Court should vacate 

the automatic stay in order to allow Ms. Cuevas to pursue her claims against the 

Commonwealth and redress her grievances.

II. DISCUSSION

7. Enacted in June 2016, PROMESA is a bankruptcy-like statute that seeks to address 

the fiscal crisis in Puerto Rico. See generally Peaje Inv. LLC v. García-Padilla, 845 

F.3d 505, 509 (1st Cir. 2017) (discussing the statute’s purpose). It enables a 

Financial Oversight Board to seek a voluntary, in-court, debt restructuring 

mechanism (“Title III”), which is modeled on debt reorganization principles for 

municipalities set forth in Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code. 48 U.S.C. §§ 2161, 

2164. A Title III petition triggers an automatic stay on actions to enforce a claim 

against the debtor, which is the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. See § 2161 

(incorporating by reference 11 U.S.C. § 922 (automatic stay for certain claims 

against a municipal debt) and 11 U.S.C. § 362 (automatic stay for voluntary and 

involuntary restructurings)). The Board filed a Title III petition on May 3, 2017, 

triggering the automatic stay under section 362. In re Commonwealth of Puerto 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3268 Filed:06/06/18 Entered:06/06/18 17:16:11 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 8
4

Rico, No. 17-3283 (LTS) (D.P.R. May 3, 2017). See Colón-Colón v. NegrónFernández, Case No. 14-1300 (D.P.R. May 14, 2018).

8. Section 362(d)(1) of Title 11 of the United States Code, made applicable in these 

proceedings by Section 301 of PROMESA, 48 U.S.C. § 2161, permits a court to 

grant relief from the automatic stay “for cause.” To determine whether cause exists 

to lift the bankruptcy stay, courts in this district examine the following factors: (1)

whether the relief will result in a partial or complete resolution of the issues; (2) the 

lack of any connection with or interference with the bankruptcy case; (3) whether 

the foreign proceeding involves the debtor as fiduciary; (4) whether a specialized 

tribunal has been established to hear the particular cause of action and that tribunal 

has the expertise to hear such cases; (5) whether the debtor's insurance carrier has 

assumed full financial responsibility for defending the litigation; (6) whether the 

action essentially involves third parties; (7) whether litigation in another forum 

would prejudice the interest of other creditors and/or other interested parties; (8)

whether the judgment claim arising from the foreign action is subject to equitable 

subordination under section 510(c) (9) whether movant's success in the foreign 

proceeding would result in a judicial lien avoidable by the debtor; (10) the interest 

of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical determination of litigation 

for the parties; (11) whether the foreign proceedings have progressed to the point 

where the parties are prepared for trial; (12) the impact of the stay on the parties and 

(13) the balance of hurt. See C&A, S.E. v. P.R. Solid Waste Mgmt. Auth., 369 B.R.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3268 Filed:06/06/18 Entered:06/06/18 17:16:11 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 8
5

87, 94-95 (D.P.R. 2007) (citing Goya Foods, Inc., et al. v. Ulpiano Unanue-Casal, 

et al., 159 B.R. 90, 95-96 (D.P.R.1993).

9. The party moving for the automatic stay to be lifted need not prove a plurality of 

these factors. Goya Foods, Inc., et al. v. Ulpiano Unanue-Casal, et al., 159 B.R. at 

95-96. The Courts will generally rely “in only a few factors . . . to determine that 

sufficient cause exist[s] to lift the stay.” Id.

10.In order for Ms. Cuevas to be able to redress her grievances, the automatic stay must

be lifted. The enforcement of the PROMESA stay will cause irreparable harm to 

Ms. Cuevas; will adversely affect her ability to adequately present her case; and will 

place her claims in an indefinite state of legal uncertainty. Plaintiff’s statutory and 

constitutional rights outweighs any detriment that the Commonwealth could suffer, 

if any, if the stay is lifted to address Plaintiff’s claims. The resolution of this legal 

controversy is indispensable to make Plaintiff whole for all the damages that she 

has suffered as a direct consequence of the discriminatory and retaliatory acts that 

she has been subjected to during her tenure at the Puerto Rico Police Department.

11.Moreover, Plaintiff has a constitutional right to have her case tried before a jury; the 

relief will resolve the issues between her and the Defendants; and her case has no 

connection with or bearing with the bankruptcy case.

12.Furthermore, in the interest of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical 

determination of litigation for the parties, the automatic stay should be lifted given 

that regardless of whether the automatic stay is lifted or not as to the 

Commonwealth, the Commonwealth will still have to participate in the 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3268 Filed:06/06/18 Entered:06/06/18 17:16:11 Desc: Main

Document Page 5 of 8
6

litigation representing the other co-defendants since the claims made against

them in their indiviual capacities are not stayed under PROMESA and the 

Commonwealth, through its Department of Justice, already assumed the legal 

representation of some of the co-defendants both in their official and in their 

individual capacities.

13.The automatic stay does not apply to individual capacity claims brought against 

Commonwealth government officials, even when the Commonwealth represents 

and promises to indemnify these officials under Puerto Rico Law 9 of November 

26, 1974, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 32, § 3085. See Guadalupe-Báez v. Pesquera, 269 F. 

Supp. 3d 1, 3 (D.P.R. 2017). (Emphasis added).

14.Puerto Rico Law 9 provides that a Commonwealth official who is sued for damages 

in his personal capacity “may request the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to provide 

him with legal representation, and to subsequently assume the payment of any 

judgment that may be entered against his person.” P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 32, § 3085. 

Upon such request, Puerto Rico's Attorney General “shall determine in which cases 

the Commonwealth shall assume legal representation.” Id. § 3087. And 

subsequently, “determine whether it is in order to pay the full judgment imposed”

on the Commonwealth employee or ex-employee. Id.; see Ayuso Figueroa v. Rivera 

González, 229 F.R.D. 41, 42 (D.P.R. 2005) (discussing process for application of 

legal representation under Law 9). If the Attorney General refuses to represent the 

employee, Plaintiff’s claim continues against the Commonwealth employee in his 

personal capacity. And even if it agrees to represent the employee, assuming 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3268 Filed:06/06/18 Entered:06/06/18 17:16:11 Desc: Main

Document Page 6 of 8
7

representation does not turn the Commonwealth into a party. Ortiz-Feliciano v. 

Toledo-Davila, 175 F.3d 37, 40 (1st Cir. 1999). Hence, the Court has held that this 

“discretion to defend and indemnify personal capacity claims,” as well as the fact 

that doing so does not make the Commonwealth a party, “means that personal 

capacity claims do not ‘seek to enforce a claim against the Debtor’ under 

PROMESA’s stay provisions.” Guadalupe-Báez, 269 F. Supp. 3d at 3.

15.Thus, although, the interest of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical 

determination of litigation for the parties will be best served by lifting the automatic 

stay provision of PROMESA.

16.Lastly, the Commonwealth will suffer no harm as a result of the lifting of the

automatic stay, since the same (i) will not disrupt the Commonwealth’s ability to 

manage the Commonwealth; (ii) will not interfere with the Commonwealth’s ability 

to provide essential services; and (iii) vacating the automatic stay in the abovereferenced case will not harm the Commonwealth or the PROMESA proceedings 

and will not undermine the comprehensive, consolidated and restructuring approach 

that said statute was ultimately designed to facilitate. Accordingly, the automatic 

stay should be lifted.

III. CONCLUSION

17.In view of the above, Ms. Cuevas respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter 

an Order vacating the automatic stay arising under §301 of PROMESA and 

Bankruptcy Code § 362 to allow the United States District Court for the District of 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3268 Filed:06/06/18 Entered:06/06/18 17:16:11 Desc: Main

Document Page 7 of 8
8

Puerto Rico to adjudicate her claims in the case of Cuevas-Rodriguez v. Soto-Lopez, 

Civil No. 17-2249 (GAG)(SCC).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter an 

Order vacating the automatic stay arising under §301 of PROMESA and Bankruptcy Code 

§ 362 to allow the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico to adjudicate 

Ms. Cuevas’ claims in the case of Cuevas-Rodriguez v. Soto-Lopez, Civil No. 17-2249 

(GAG)(SCC).

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 6

th day of June, 2018.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, a true and exact copy of this document was 

electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send 

notification of such filing to all attorneys of record. The foregoing is also being mailed 

separately to attorney Yadhira Ramírez-Toro, Puerto Rico Department of Justice.

P.O. Box 195343 Citibank Towers, Suite 500

San Juan, Puerto Rico 252 Ponce de León Avenue

00919-5343 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918

Tel. (787) 758-1400

Fax: (787) 758-1414

www.laborcounsels.com

pico@laborcounsels.com

S/ JAIME E. PICÓ-RODRÍGUEZ

Attorney for Grisell Cuevas-Rodríguez

USDCPR # 228113

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3268 Filed:06/06/18 Entered:06/06/18 17:16:11 Desc: Main

Document Page 8 of 8