Torres-Gonzalez v. HIMA Hospital of Caguas et al

Filing 37

OPINION AND ORDER. GRANTED 16 MOTION to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction for failure to meet amount in controversy as to HIMA Hospital of Caguas; GRANTED 24 MOTION to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction as to Radames Torres-Gonzalez filed by Autonomous Muni cipality of Caguas; GRANTED 27 MOTION for Joinder filed by Borinquen Memorial; MOOT 32 Motion In Compliance with Court Order Regarding Deadlines/MOTION to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution Of Motion To Dismiss. Signed by Judge Salvador E Casellas on 9/8/2009.(LB)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO R A D A M E S TORRES-GONZALEZ Plaintiff v. H IM A SAN PABLO CAGUAS, ET AL Defendants CIVIL NO. 09-1463 (SEC)

O P I N I O N AND ORDER O n July 14, 2009, Centro Medico del Turabo, Inc. d/b/a HIMA San Pablo Caguas (" H IM A " ) filed a motion to dismiss. Docket # 16. The Municipality of Caguas, and Borinquen M e m o ria l filed respective motions for joinder. Dockets ## 24 and 27. Plaintiff Radames TorresG o n z á le z ("Torres" or "Plaintiff") opposed (Docket # 28), the Municipality replied (Docket # 3 1 ) , and Plaintiff filed a motion supplementing his prior opposition (Docket # 35). After re v ie w in g the filings, and the applicable law, Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. F a c tu a l Background P la in tif f filed suit against HIMA, the Municipality of Caguas, and Borinquen Memorial (c o lle c tiv e ly "Defendants"), pursuant to diversity jurisdiction,1 seeking relief under Articles 1 8 0 2 and 1803 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31 § 5141 & 5142 (2007). A c c o rd in g to the complaint, on January 13, 2009, Carlos I. Collazo-Torres ("Collazo") died in th e intensive care unit at HIMA. Plaintiff avers that, after Collazo's death, HIMA did not place th e body in the morgue allegedly because it did not fit due to Collazo's morbid obesity.

21 22 23 24 25 26

Plaintiff argues that, as a result thereof, Collazo's body began to decompose, and was in an a d v a n c e d state of decomposition when the funeral was held several days later. He further a lle g e s that Borinquen Memorial refused to hold a service in the chapel because Collazo's f a m ily did not purchase the coffin and the mausoleum from said company, depriving him of "his

1

Plaintiff is a resident of Columbus, Ohio.

1 2

CIVIL NO. 09-1463 (SEC)

Page 2

r i g h t to wake his beloved cousin in the way he deserved." Docket # 1, p. 4. Additionally, 3 Plaintiff avers that the Municipality of Caguas' cemetery employees mocked, laughed, and 4 rid ic u le d their family because the coffin did not fit in a traditional funeral car, and instead was 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 f u rth e r avers that Article 1802 extends to any negligent conduct that causes damages, and is not 17 lim ite d to a particular set of facts. On August 27, 2009, Plaintiff filed an unsworn declaration 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 in support of his opposition, wherein he describes his relationship with Collazo, and the pain a n d suffering he endured as a result of Defendants' alleged negligence. S ta n d a r d of Review F e d . R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) R u le 12(b)(1) is the proper vehicle for challenging a court's subject matter jurisdiction. Valentín v. Hospital Bella Vista, 254 F.3d 358, 362-63 (1st Cir. 2001). Under this rule, a wide v a rie ty of challenges to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction may be asserted, among them th o s e based on sovereign immunity, ripeness, mootness, and the existence of a federal question. Id. (citations omitted); see also Hernández-Santiago v. Ecolab, Inc., 397 F.3d 30, 33 (1 st Cir. tra n s p o rte d using a flatbed truck. Lastly, according to Plaintiff, due to the cemetery employees' f a ilu re to secure the coffin while lowering it into the grave, it fell five feet, and as a result, his c o u s in 's body fell out of the coffin in the presence of all the mourners. Based on the foregoing, P la in tif f , as Collazo's cousin, seeks indemnization for the personal pain and suffering allegedly c a u s e d by Defendants' negligence. O n July 14, 2009, HIMA filed a motion to dismiss. Docket # 16. Therein, HIMA argues th a t this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff's claim does not meet the a m o u n t in controversy requirement. HIMA also alleges that Plaintiff fails to state a claim a ris in g under the state tort statute insofar as there is no "right to wake a beloved cousin." D o c k e t # 16, p. 7. Shortly thereafter, Borinquen Memorial and the Municipality of Caguas jo in e d HIMA's motion to dismiss. Dockets ## 24 and 27. In opposition, Plaintiff contends that, c o n sid e rin g the allegations in the complaint, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. He

1 2

CIVIL NO. 09-1463 (SEC)

Page 3

2 0 0 5 ) (discussing application of Rule 12(b)(1) challenge in cases where the court allegedly has 3 d iv e rs ity jurisdiction). Justiciability is a component of a court's subject matter jurisdiction, and, 4 a s such, must be reviewed following Rule 12(b)(1)'s standards. Sumitomo v. Quantum, 434 F. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 a lle g a tio n s . " Dynamic, 221 F. 3d at 38. That is, the principle of conversion of a motion to 17 d is m is s into a motion for summary judgment when extrinsic materials are reviewed, does not 18 19 Applicable Law and Analysis 20 21 22 E n v iro n m e n t, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). Therefore this Court must first address any jurisdictional 23 24 25 26 iss u e . Subject matter jurisdiction is granted to federal courts by either "28 U.S.C. § 1331, which p ro v id e s for `[f]ederal-question' jurisdiction, [or] § 1332, which provides for `[d]iversity of c i tiz e n s h ip ' jurisdiction." Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006). Historically, T h e Supreme Court has held that, in order for the Court to hear a case, subject matter ju ris d ic t i o n must "be established as a threshold matter." Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better a p p ly in regards to a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. S u p p . 2d 93 (D.P.R. 2006). A court faced with a Rule 12(b)(1) motion should give it preference. D yn a m ic Image Technologies, Inc. v. U.S., 221 F. 3d 34, 37 (1 st Cir. 2000). A plaintiff faced with a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction has the b u rd e n to demonstrate that such jurisdiction exists. See Lord v. Casco Bay Weekly, Inc., 789 F . Supp. 32, 33 (D. Me. 1992); see also SURCCO V. PRASA, 157 F. Supp. 2d 160, 163 (D. P .R . 2001). In this context, a court is empowered to resolve factual disputes by making re f e re n c e to evidence in the record, beyond the plaintiff's allegations, without having to convert th e motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. Id. Moreover, "[w]here a party c h a lle n g e s the accuracy of the pleaded jurisdictional facts, the court may conduct a broad in q u iry, taking evidence and making findings of fact." Hernández-Santiago v. Ecolab, Inc., 397 F . 3d 30 (1st Cir. 2005). Therefore, the court may consider extrinsic materials, "and, to the e x te n t it engages in jurisdictional fact-finding, is free to test the truthfulness of the plaintiff's

1 2 3 4 5 6

Civil Case No 09-1463 (SEC) d iv e rs ity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and all d e f e n d a n ts . Connectu LLC v. Zuckerberg, 522 F.3d 82, 91 (1 st Cir. 2008). In this case, there is c o m p le te diversity insofar as Plaintiff is a resident of Ohio, and all Defendants reside in Puerto R ic o . However, Plaintiff must also show that he meets the amount in controversy requirement, th a t is, the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, excluding interests and costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

7 W h en determining whether a party meets the amount-in-controversy minimum, the Court 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 c o n f e rre d by the stroke of a lawyer's pen...[w]hen challenged it must be adequately founded in 20 f a c t." Diefenthal v. C.A.B., 681 F. 2d 1039, 1052. A court must examine the complaint to 21 22 23 24 25 26 d e te rm in e whether "it is facially apparent that the claims exceed the jurisdictional amount," only w h e n a plaintiff does not allege a specific amount of damages. St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. V . Greenberg, 134 F. 3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998). In that case, the court may rely on " s u m m a ry-ju d g m e n t type evidence to ascertain the amount in controversy." Id. Thus, the "legal c e rta in ty test has limited utility - in fact is inapplicable- when the plaintiff has alleged an in d e te rm in a te amount of damages." Id. m u s t apply the long standing test established in St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 3 0 3 U.S. 283 (1938). See Spielman v. Genzyme Corp., 251 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2001); R e n a is s a n c e Mktg. v. Monitronics Int'l, Inc., 606 F. Supp. 2d 201, 210 (D.P.R. 2009). The test re q u ire s that in performing this inquiry, the court use the sum claimed by the plaintiff "if the c la im is apparently made in good faith." Spielman, 251 F. 3d at 5; see also Stewart v. T u p p e rw a re Corp., 356 F. 3d 335 (1st Cir. 2004). This general allegation "suffices unless q u e s tio n e d by the opposing party or the court." Stewart, 356 F. 3d at 338. Notwithstanding, if th e defendant challenges the damages allegation, then "the party seeking to invoke jurisdiction h a s the burden of alleging with sufficient particularity facts indicating that it is not a legal c e rta in ty that the claim involves less than the jurisdictional amount." Id. This can be done by a m e n d in g the pleadings or by submitting affidavits. Spielman, 251 F. 3d at 5. However, a lth o u g h the party may meet this burden by amending the pleadings, "jurisdiction is not

1 2 3 4 5 6

Civil Case No 09-1463 (SEC) In his complaint, Plaintiff requests $400,000 for alleged pain and suffering, plus interest, c o s ts , and attorney's fees. Based on the foregoing, he asserts that the amount in controversy re q u ire m e n t is met. In support thereof, Plaintiff cites a case in which a jury awarded $500,000 to each of the deceased's brothers, $350,000 to three other siblings, and $150,000, and $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 to the remaining siblings. However, said amounts were awarded as a result of their b ro th e r's death, which clearly differs from the facts of this case. Here, Plaintiff's claims are

7 b a s e d upon his pain and suffering for the decomposition of his cousin's body, which in turn 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 o v e r the instant case. 20 Conclusion 21 22 23 24 25 26 Based on the foregoing, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's c la im s are DISMISSED without prejudice. I T IS SO ORDERED. In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 8 th day of September, 2009. S /S a lv a d o r E. Casellas S a lv a d o r E. Casellas a d v e rs e ly affected the wake, and the cemetery employees' negligence while lowering the coffin in to the grave. As previously stated, although a court may use the sum claimed by the plaintiff " if the claim is apparently made in good faith," this general allegation "suffices unless q u e s tio n e d by the opposing party or the court." Stewart, 356 F. 3d at 338. Since Defendants q u e s tio n the amount requested by Plaintiff, he bears the burden of showing, "with sufficient p a rtic u la rity, facts indicating that it is not a legal certainty that the claim involves less than the ju ris d ic tio n a l amount," by affidavit or amendments to the complaint. Stewart, 356 F. 3d at 338. T h is Court notes that Plaintiff did not move to amend the complaint. Moreover, upon reviewing P la in tif f 's filings and unsworn statement, this Court finds that he fails to show, with sufficient p a rtic u la rity, facts indicating that it is not a legal certainty that the claim involves less than the ju ris d ic tio n a l amount, that is, that his damages exceed $75,000. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to meet the amount in controversy requirement, and this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Civil Case No 09-1463 (SEC) U .S . District Senior Judge