Diaz-Baez v. Alicea-Vasallo ( 2021 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 19-1474
MARÍA S. DÍAZ-BÁEZ; VÍCTOR A. BURGOS-TORRES; THELMA L. PÉREZ-
GUZMÁN; MARISOL DOMÍNGUEZ-RIVERA; HÉCTOR J. ALBELO-CARTAGENA;
MÓNICA MOLINA-SALAS; RAMÓN L. RIVERA-GASCOT; SYLVIA ALVARADO-
HERNÁNDEZ; PEDRO R. MARTÍNEZ-AGOSTO; CARMEN E. MEDINA-ADORNO;
PEDRO I. CARTAGENA-RODRÍGUEZ; EDUARDO BARREIRO-DIAZ; MELIXA
MARRERO-GONZÁLEZ; MERCEDES LAMBERTY-ROMÁN; CARLOS A. AQUINO-
VALENTÍN; DEBBIE A. CARDONA-CAPRE; DIANA I. SÁNCHEZ-PAGÁN; FÉLIX
MARRERO-VÁZQUEZ; GISSELLE PAGÁN-MELÉNDEZ; SHIERLY CARDONA-ORTIZ;
ROSA M. SOTO-GARCÍA; LIMARI MARTÍNEZ-RODRÍGUEZ; MARIEL TORRES-
LÓPEZ; ANTONIO J. COLLADO-RIVERA; VIVIAN M. BRACERO-ROSA; LUIS
COSS-VARGAS; BRAULIO E. FIGUEROA-DÍAZ; ROSA M. SANTOS-CARBALLO;
KAROLIE GÓMEZ-RIVERA; OMAR RIVERA-PÉREZ; CLARIBEL ROSADO-
FERNÁNDEZ; IVÁN E. GONZÁLEZ-GARCÍA; JOSÉ GRAU-ORTIZ; BRENDA
MARTÍNEZ-FIGUEROA; CIRILO TIRADO-RIVERA; BETZAIDA ROSARIO-FÉLIX;
VIRGILIO ESCOBAR-QUIÑONES; LUZ CRISTINA JIMÉNEZ-CORTÉS; HÉCTOR
M. BARRIOS-VELÁZQUEZ; MÓNICA RODRÍGUEZ-OCASIO; DANIEL RAMOS-
RAMOS; CARMEN HAYDEÉ RAMOS-LUNA; MELISA RIVERA-FUENTES; MARIELI
RÍOS-PÉREZ; EVELYN VELÁZQUEZ-ADORNO; JOSÉ W. ORTIZ-LÓPEZ; CÉSAR
E. DEIDA-TORRES; DAVID R. SHERMAN; REBECCA COTTO-OYOLA; DAVID
PONCE-MENA; NATIVIDAD CURBELLO-CONTRERAS; VIRGINIA ECHEVARRÍA;
PEDRO FÉLIX-TORRES; RUTH M. MELÉNDEZ-RODRÍGUEZ; ZUHER YOUSSIF-
YASSIN; ASTRID M. DELGADO-IRIZARRY; TIRSO RODRÍGUEZ-APONTE;
YANIRA RODRÍGUEZ-RIVERA; VIVIAN A. HERNÁNDEZ-ROBLES; ROBERTO
MIRANDA-SANTIAGO; ADA I. RIVERA-GARCÍA; JOSÉ E. FIGUEROA-NIEVES;
ALLAN WAINWRIGHT-ESTAPE; DAISY RODRÍGUEZ-ALEJANDRO; RADAMÉS
PÉREZ-RODRÍGUEZ; MARÍA I. DELANNOY-DE-JESÚS; MANUEL R. REYES
ALFONSO; AMARILIS RIVERO-QUILES; LUIS LAGARES-GARCÍA; ROCÍO
RIVERA-TORRES; JONATHAN R. ORTIZ-SERRANO; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP
ALBELO-HERNÁNDEZ; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP BARREIRO-ROSARIO;
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP BURGOS-DÍAZ; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP
CARTAGENA-MEDINA; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP COLLADO-TORRES; CONJUGAL
PARTNERSHIP COSS-BRACERO; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP FÉLIX-ECHEVARRÍA;
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP FIGUEROA-RIVERA; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP
FIGUEROA-SANTOS; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP GRAU-VÁZQUEZ; CONJUGAL
PARTNERSHIP MARRERO-PAGÁN; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP MARTÍNEZ-
ALVARADO; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP MIRANDA-HERNÁNDEZ; CONJUGAL
PARTNERSHIP MULER-VELÁZQUEZ; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP ORTIZ-ACEVEDO;
CONJUGAL PARTNRESHIP PONCE-COTTO; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP RAMOS-
RODRÍGUEZ; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP REYES-DELANNOY; CONJUGAL
- 1 -
PARTNERSHIP RODRÍGUEZ-RODRÍGUEZ; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP RIVERA-
ROSADO; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP TIRADO-MARTÍNEZ; CONJUGAL
PARTNERSHIP LAGARES-RIVERO,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
JUANA M. CONTRERAS-CASTRO; LEILA A. HERNÁNDEZ-JIMÉNEZ; YELITZA
I. HERNÁNDEZ-HERNÁNDEZ; YALITZA ROSARIO-MENENDEZ; RAQUEL
CARDONA-SOTO; MARIBEL ALICEA-LUGO; HUMBERTO L. MULER-SANTIAGO;
MARIELA TORRES-MOLINI; CARMEN YOLANDA VÁZQUEZ-ORTIZ; LUIS A.
RODRÍGUEZ-TORO; NEREIDA RIVERA-BATISTA; BERNICE BERBERENA-
MALDONADO; RICARDO ROSARIO-SÁNCHEZ; AXEL FRESSE-ÁLVAREZ;
GLORIELY MIRANDA-OCASIO; LUIS A. MULER-SANTIAGO; GRETCHEN M.
ACEVEDO-RIVERA; DOMINGO MARIANI-MOLINI; REBECA M. NEGRÓN-
UMPIERRE; JORGE APARICIO-TORRES; CARMEN E. RODRIGUEZ-SANTIAGO;
LYNETTE YAMBÓ-MERCADO; MARIANNA RAMÍREZ-ÁLVAREZ; CONJUGAL
PARTNERSHIP FRESSE-MIRANDA; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP ROSARIO-
BERBERENA,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JULIO ALICEA-VASALLO, Executive Director of the AACA, in his
official and personal capacities; AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT
COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION,
Defendants, Appellees,
MARIBEL CONCEPCIÓN-CANTRES, former Personnel Director of the
AACA, in her official and personal capacities; ABC INSURANCE
COMPANY; ERNESTO RIVERA-NEGRÓN; RICHARD DOE; JANE ROE; JANE DOE;
JOHN DOE; X CORPORATION; Y CORPORATION; DEF INSURANCE COMPANY;
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP ALICEA-DOE; CONJGAL PARTNERSHIP DOE-
CONCEPCIÓN; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP RIVERA-ROE,
Defendants.
ERRATA SHEET
The opinion of this Court, issued on December 23,
2021, is amended as follows:
- 2 -
On pages 11–12, footnote 3, add after "(similar)." "The
district court had ruled the stay did not apply. The parties in
whose interest it would have been to take advantage of the stay,
if applicable at all, take the position the stay did not apply and
no party appealed the determination by the district court. Our
decision in HealthproMed Foundation, Inc. v. Department of Health
and Human Services, 982 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2020), is distinguishable
because it was clear the stay applied and here the issue is one of
considerable complexity. See also Borrás-Borrero v. Corporación
del Fondo del Seguro del Estado, 958 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 2020)
(bypassing the application of the PROMESA automatic stay where the
parties agreed the stay did not apply, the stay issue was "not
clear-cut," and the judgment resulted in dismissal on the merits)."
On page 22, line 1, add "the" before "Board of
Directors".
- 3 -