FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
PUERTO RICO HON. SALVADOR E. CASELLAS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
A. Suro Carrasco, with whom Jorge Miguel Suro Ballester and
Suro & Suro were on brief, for appellants.
L. Diloné Fernández, with whom Carl Schuster,
Andrés C. Gorbea Del Valle, and Schuster Aguiló
LLC were on brief, for appellees.
Torruella, Lipez, and Barron, Circuit Judges.
Víctor Ramos-Santiago ("Ramos-Santiago"),
his daughter Maryam Ramos-Meléndez and four minor
grandchildren (hereinafter referred to collectively as
"Ramos-Santiago"), filed this suit under Puerto
Rico law, premised on diversity jurisdiction, against
Ramos-Santiago's former employer and its insurance
carrier. In the complaint, Ramos-Santiago alleges
unjust dismissal and age discrimination in employment, and
his family asserts derivative tort claims arising from the
alleged age discrimination.
district court granted summary judgment for
Defendants on Ramos-Santiago's discrimination
claim and the family's derivative tort claims, denied
summary judgment on the unjust dismissal claim, and denied
Ramos-Santiago's cross-motion for summary judgment.
Ramos-Santiago then filed a motion for reconsideration, which
the district court denied. The parties subsequently settled
the unjust dismissal claim.
appeal, Ramos-Santiago challenges the partial entry of
summary judgment in favor of Defendants, the denial of his
motion for summary judgment, and the denial of his motion for
reconsideration. After careful consideration, we affirm.
address a preliminary jurisdictional issue. Ramos-Santiago
filed his notice of appeal after the district court's
entry of partial summary judgment but prior to its entry of
final judgment. Ramos-Santiago's notice of appeal was
therefore premature, and Wyndham has questioned our
jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.
The History of the Proceedings
March 14, 2017, the district court issued an opinion and
order granting partial summary judgment to Wyndham.
Ramos-Santiago filed a motion for reconsideration, which the
district court denied on March 23, 2017. On April 7, 2017,
the court, noting the likelihood of settlement of the unjust
dismissal claim, entered an order, labeled
"judgment," closing the case for
"administrative purposes," and stating that the
case would be reopened for a final judgment after the parties
settled the remaining claim.
April 28, 2017, Ramos-Santiago advised the court that the
parties had settled the unjust dismissal claim. He also
informed the court of his intent to appeal the court's
disposition of his other claims:
Due to the Judgment [entered April 7] and in an abundance of
caution, the plaintiffs will file a Notice of Appeal today,
subject to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(2).
same day, Ramos-Santiago filed a notice of appeal. A week
after the notice was filed, on May 3, 2017, the district
court entered a final judgment dismissing all claims with
prejudice. Subsequently, on May 11, 2017, the court issued a
new, lengthy memorandum and order, again denying
Ramos-Santiago's motion for reconsideration and modifying
and superseding the court's previous order. See
Ramos-Santiago v. WHM Carib, LLC, No.
CV 14-1087 (SEC), 2017 WL 2062857, at *7 (D.P.R. May 11,
2017) (stating additional reasons for the failure of
Ramos-Santiago's "pretext" argument).
Ramos-Santiago did not appeal from either the final judgment
or the superseding order.
Rule 4(a)(2) and ...