1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 22-cv-22343

JORGE MONTEAGUDO ALBURQUERQUE

Plaintiff,

v.

THE DE MOYA GROUP, INC.,

a Florida Profit Corporation,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

JOINT STATUS REPORT

Pursuant to this Court’s Paperless Order Requiring Status Report issued on September 26, 2024 

(ECF. No. 139), Plaintiff, Jorge Monteagudo Alburquerque (“Monteagudo”), and Defendant, The 

De Moya Group, Inc. (“De Moya”), through their undersigned counsel, hereby submit their Joint 

Status Report setting forth proposed further proceedings for the Court to take in this case.

A. Proposed Course of Proceedings for this Case

Monteagudo filed this lawsuit alleging De Moya retaliated against him in violation of the Civil 

Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”) and the Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”). 

See generally Amended Complaint (ECF No. 13). On May 16, 2023, this Court granted summary 

judgment in favor of De Moya and closed this matter. (ECF No. 87). Subsequently, Monteagudo 

filed a Motion to Alter Judgment pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

(“Motion for Reconsideration”), which this Court denied. See (ECF No. 100). After this Court 

granted summary judgment in favor of De Moya and denied the Motion for Reconsideration, 

Monteagudo appealed. (ECF No. 113). On September 13, 2024, the Eleventh Circuit issued its 

Mandate partially reversing summary judgment. (ECF No. 138). Therein, the Eleventh Circuit held

that “Monteagudo has not established a sufficient case of retaliatory discharge, but his retaliatory 

Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 141 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2024 Page 1 of 4
2

harassment theory survives summary judgment.” Id. at 10. Accordingly, this Court’s summary 

judgment order was “affirm[ed] in part, revers[ed] in part, and remand[ed] for further proceedings 

consistent with [the Eleventh Circuit’s] opinion.” Id. Subsequently, De Moya filed a Petition for 

Rehearing En Banc, which the Eleventh Circuit Court denied. The Parties are currently engaged 

in settlement negotiations but as of the date of this report, have been unable to come to an 

agreement. 

In its analysis of Monteagudo’s “retaliatory harassment” theory, the Eleventh Circuit found 

that this Court’s determination that the De Moya supervisors’ behavior toward Monteagudo did 

not rise to the level of an adverse action relied on the “adverse action standard for discrimination 

claims” rather than the standard used for a Title VII retaliation claim. See (ECF No. 138) at 6 

(citing Crawford v. Carroll, 529 F.3d 961, 964 (11th Cir. 2008)). De Moya contends that the 

Eleventh Circuit did not consider De Moya’s arguments indicating that this Court was well within 

its authority to deem De Moya’s material facts as undisputed due to Monteagudo’s repeated failure 

to submit a compliant statement of material facts. Monteagudo maintains that De Moya’s 

arguments were considered and rejected by the Eleventh Circuit in its Mandate and also when the 

Court denied De Moya’s Petition for Rehearing.

De Moya proposes that the Court set a schedule for the filing of dispositive and pre-trial 

motions in accordance with the Eleventh Circuit’s Mandate addressing Plaintiff’s “retaliatory 

harassment theory” raised on appeal under the standard for Title VII retaliation claims set forth 

under Crawford and its progeny. See 529 F.3d at 964. Also, depending on the disposition of the 

case, De Moya intends on renewing its motions to tax costs and/or for attorneys’ fees.

Plaintiff disagrees with De Moya’s filing of dispositive motions and contends that De Moya

cannot attempt to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised in its original 

Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 141 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2024 Page 2 of 4
3

Motion for Summary Judgment. The disfavored status of repeat motions for summary judgment, 

absent special circumstances, remains the law of this Circuit. See Fernandez v. Bankers National 

Life Insurance Co., 906 F.2d 559, 569 (11th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff argues that while the Eleventh 

Circuit acknowledged that De Moya disputes the events underlying the retaliatory harassment 

theory occurred, “[b]ecause a reasonable jury could find that such events would ‘dissuade[] a 

reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination,’ Monteagudo 

established an adverse action for purposes of summary judgment.” (ECF No. 138 at 9-10). 

Therefore, Plaintiff proposes that the Court set a schedule for trial taking into consideration the 

parties’ proposed Joint Scheduling Report which shall be filed on or before October 17, 2024. See 

(ECF No. 139). 

De Moya maintains that the issue of whether a party may file dispositive motions upon remand 

is not properly brought nor addressed through a Joint Status Report, and any substantive arguments 

opposing De Moya’s dispositive motions should be raised in Monteagudo’s responsive filings.

Dated: October 15, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Nathaly Saavedra

Nathaly Saavedra, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 118315 

Juan J. Perez, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 115784 

PEREGONZA THE ATTORNEYS, PLLC

5201 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 290

Miami, FL 33126 

Tel. (786) 650-0202 

Fax. (786) 650-0200

nathaly@peregonza.com

juan@peregonza.com

Counsel for Plaintiff, Jorge Monteagudo 

Alburquerque

/s/ Chanelle Artiles

Reginald J. Clyne, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 654301

Chanelle Artiles, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 1006402

Andres F. Vidales, Esq. 

Florida Bar No.: 1041185

Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, PA

9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., 4th Floor

Miami, FL 33156

Tel: (305) 670-1101

Fax: (305) 670-1161

reginald.clyne@qpwblaw.com

chanelle.artiles@qpwblaw.com

andres.vidales@qpwblaw.com

Counsel for Defendant, The De Moya Group

Inc.

Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 141 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2024 Page 3 of 4
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 15, 2024, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was 

filed with the Clerk of Court via CM/ECF, which will send notice of electronic filing to attorneys 

for the Plaintiff, Nathaly Saavedra, nathaly@peregonza.com, Juan J. Perez, juan@peregonza.com, 

Peregonza The Attorneys, PLLC, and all other parties registered to receive service in this case. 

/s/ Chanelle Artiles

Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 141 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2024 Page 4 of 4