180319 ORDER RE NIEVES RECONSIDERATION VERSION MARCH 19, 2018 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

----------------------------------------------------------x 

In re: PROMESA 

 Title III 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, 

as representative of No. 17 BK 3283-LTS 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, (Jointly Administered) 

et al., 

 Debtors.1

----------------------------------------------------------x 

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

FILED BY BEATRIZ NIEVES-LÓPEZ, ET AL. 

Before the Court is a motion filed by Beatriz Nieves López and 26 other plaintiffs 

(collectively, the “Movants”) for reconsideration of this Court’s January 4, 2018 order (the 

“Order,” Docket Entry No. 2205) denying Movants’ motion for relief from the automatic stay 

(the “Reconsideration Motion). (Docket Entry No. 2263.) The Court has carefully considered 

the submissions. For the following reasons, the Reconsideration Motion is denied insofar as it 

seeks reconsideration of this Court’s earlier determination to deny Movants relief from the 

automatic stay. 

 

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 (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); and (v) Puerto Rico Electric 

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

Federal Tax ID: 3747). (Title III case numbers are listed as Bankruptcy Case numbers due to 

software limitations). 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2723 Filed:03/19/18 Entered:03/19/18 12:01:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 4
180319 ORDER RE NIEVES RECONSIDERATION VERSION MARCH 19, 2018 2 

The Movants seek to continue an action, commenced on March 17, 2014, in the 

District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (“District Court”) against various governmental 

officers sued in their personal and official capacities, captioned Nieves-López, et al. v. BhatiaGautier et al., Civil Case No. 14-01220 (the “Lawsuit”). In the Court’s Order denying relief 

from stay, it had declined to revisit the prior determination of the District Court before which the 

Lawsuit is pending that the automatic stay applied to that Lawsuit, and had focused its attention 

on whether there is cause for relief from the automatic stay. In their Reconsideration Motion, 

Movants proffer that the issue of stay applicability was not litigated prior to the entry of the stay 

order in the Lawsuit, and renew their argument that the automatic stay is inapplicable to the 

Lawsuit. The Court finds review of the issue appropriate and grants the Reconsideration Motion 

to that extent. For the following reasons, the Court finds that the automatic stay applies to the 

entire Lawsuit. 

Section 362(a)(1) and (3) of the Bankruptcy Code, which are made applicable in 

these proceedings by section 301 of PROMESA, provide that: “(a) a petition filed under . . . this 

title . . ., operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of— (1) the commencement or continuation, 

including the issuance or employment of process, of a judicial, administrative, or other action or 

proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the 

commencement of the case under this title, or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose 

before the commencement of the case under this title . . . [and] (3) any act to obtain possession of 

property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over property of the 

estate.” 11 U.S.C.S. § 362(a)(1) and (3) (LexisNexis 2009 & Supp. 2017). 

Movants, the named Plaintiffs in the Lawsuit, filed the Lawsuit against various 

government officials of the Commonwealth in their personal and official capacities for alleged 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2723 Filed:03/19/18 Entered:03/19/18 12:01:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 4
180319 ORDER RE NIEVES RECONSIDERATION VERSION MARCH 19, 2018 3 

violations of the Constitution of the United States, seeking monetary damages against the 

defendants in their individual capacities pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and equitable relief against 

defendants in their official capacities in connection with alleged violations of Movants’ federal 

constitutional rights during Movants’ employment at the Commonwealth’s Office of Legislative 

Services. An official-capacity suit against a Commonwealth official is functionally a suit against 

the Commonwealth. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991). Moreover, as this Court has 

previously explained, the Commonwealth has assumed the legal defense and the responsibility 

for any monetary judgments against the Defendants in the Lawsuit. As a result, the Lawsuit is 

subject to the automatic stay pursuant to Section 362(a)(1) and (a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, as 

the Movants seek the continuation of a judicial action against the Debtor that was commenced 

pre-petition and are attempting to obtain or control property of the Debtor through a judgment 

against the defendants providing equitable relief and damages, responsibility for payment of 

which lies with the Commonwealth. 

The Court now turns to the Movants’ request for reconsideration of its decision to 

deny relief from the automatic stay. “A motion for reconsideration of a previous order is an 

extraordinary remedy that must be used sparingly because of interest in finality and conservation 

of scarce judicial resources.” In re Pabon Rodriguez, 233 B.R. 212, 220 (Bankr. D.P.R. 1999), 

aff’d, 2000 WL 35916017 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2000), aff’d, 17 F. App’x 5 (1st Cir. 2001). “The 

movant ‘must either clearly establish a manifest error of law or must present newly discovered 

evidence.’” Cherena v. Coors Brewing Co., 20 F. Supp. 2d 282, 287 (D.P.R. 1998) 

(international citations omitted). 

Here, the Movants have not met their burden of establishing a manifest error of 

law or proffering newly discovered evidence justifying reconsideration. All of the arguments the 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2723 Filed:03/19/18 Entered:03/19/18 12:01:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 4
180319 ORDER RE NIEVES RECONSIDERATION VERSION MARCH 19, 2018 4 

Movants assert in the Reconsideration Motion are virtually identical to the ones previously made 

in the Movants’ initial motion for relief from the automatic stay and were considered thoroughly 

by the Court at that time. The Movants have not identified any facts overlooked by this Court 

nor identified any law that was not previously examined by this Court. The Movants have made 

no showing that reconsideration of the determination that cause to lift the stay is lacking is 

warranted. Therefore, the Reconsideration Motion is granted to the extent that the Court has 

now addressed the applicability of the automatic stay, and is denied in all other respects. 

This Order resolves docket entry no. 2263 in case no. 17-3283. 

 SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 19, 2018 

 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain 

 LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

 United States District Judge 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2723 Filed:03/19/18 Entered:03/19/18 12:01:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 4