Sanchez et al v. Integrand Assurance Company
Filing
37
OPINION AND ORDER denying 30 MOTION to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction as to All Plaintiffs filed by Integrand Assurance Company. Signed by Judge Jay A Garcia-Gregory on 08/05/2011.(DPS)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
MANUEL SANCHEZ RODRIGUEZ, et al.,
CIVIL NO. 10-1476 (JAG)
Plaintiffs
v.
INTEGRAND ASSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant
OPINION AND ORDER
GARCIA-GREGORY, D.J.
Before the Court is Integrand Assurance Company’s Motion
to Dismiss Pursuant to to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 12(b)(6) (Docket No.
30).
For
the
reasons
set
forth
below,
the
motion
is
hereby
DENIED.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 1, 2010, Manuel Sánchez Rodríguez, domiciled in
Ohio, and Emanuel Sánchez Rodríguez, domiciled in Massachusetts,
filed
a
complaint
against
Integrand
Assurance
Company
(“Integrand”), a corporation organized and existing under the
laws
of
Puerto
Rico.
They
alleged
that
their
mother
Susana
Civil No. 10-1476 (JAG)
2
Rodríguez Bermúdez died as a consequence of the injuries she
suffered when she was hit by a fire truck insured by Integrand.
They claimed $500,000 each for their own pain and suffering, and
$1,000,000
for
the
pain
and
suffering
their
mother
endured
before her death, which they inherited. They alleged this Court
had
diversity
outside
of
jurisdiction
Puerto
Rico
because
and
Plaintiffs
because
their
were
domiciled
claims
exceeded
$75,000.
On February 18, 2011, Plaintiffs requested leave to file an
Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 20). They stated that they wished
to withdraw their personal pain and suffering claim and would
only seek compensation for the inherited cause of action. The
Court granted their request. (Docket No. 21). Accordingly, on
February 23, 2011, they filed an Amended Complaint and requested
that their claims for their own emotional damages be dismissed
with prejudice. (Docket Nos. 24, 25). On that same date, the
Court
entered
a
partial
judgment
dismissing
their
causes
of
action for pain and suffering. (Docket No. 27).
The Amended Complaint, states that Plaintiffs’ mother was
hit by a fire truck property of the Puerto Rico Fire Department
on July 17, 2009. (Docket No. 24, ¶ 5). As a result of the
impact she had to have her left arm amputated. Id. at 7. She
received blood transfusions and morphine to relieve the pain and
Civil No. 10-1476 (JAG)
3
remained
hospitalized
until
July
25,
2009.
According
to
the
complaint, she died on December of the same year due to postaccident medical complications. Id. Plaintiffs’ claim is based
on the inherited cause of action.
On
July
28,
2011,
Integrand
filed
a
Motion
to
Dismiss
arguing that the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit
because
Plaintiffs
should
be
deemed
“representatives
of
the
estate” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. As such, it posits,
they are deemed citizens of Puerto Rico, where their mother was
domiciled at the time of her death.
On August 1, 2011, Plaintiffs opposed the motion. (Docket
No. 32). They aver that under Puerto Rico law an estate does not
have
legal
capacity
and
only
the
members
of
the
estate
are
plaintiffs in this case.
On that same day, Integrand filed a Reply. (Docket No. 1).
However, the Court struck said filing because Integrand had not
requested
prior
leave
to
file
as
required
by
Local
Rule
7.
(Docket No. 33).
The
Court
also
notes
that
Integrand
waited
until
this
advanced state of the proceedings, with trial set a month away,
to file its motion, despite the fact that the Amended Complaint
was filed six months ago.
Civil No. 10-1476 (JAG)
4
ANALYSIS
“In order to maintain an action in federal court based upon
diversity jurisdiction, the plaintiff must be diverse from the
defendant in the case.” Gorfinkle v. U.S. Airways, Inc., 431
F.3d 19, 22 (1st Cir. 2005); Cook, Stratton & Co. v. Universal
Ins. Group, Inc., 241 F.R.D. 411, 416 (D.P.R. 2007). “Diversity
of Jurisdiction exists only when there is complete diversity,
that is, when no plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any
defendant.” Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267, 2 L. Ed. 435
(1806); Gabriel v. Preble, 396 F.3d 10, 13 (1st Cir. 2005). For
purposes of determining the existence of diversity jurisdiction,
the
citizenship
of
the
parties
is
to
be
determined
with
reference to the facts as they existed at the time of filing.
Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 569570, 124 S. Ct. 1920, 158 L. Ed. 2d 866 (2004).
The
statute
that
regulates
diversity
of
citizenship
prescribes that district courts shall have original jurisdiction
to
entertain
$75,000
and
cases
is,
where
among
the
others,
matter
in
between
controversy
citizens
of
exceeds
different
states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). For purposes of this statute, the
term
“states”
includes
the
Commonwealth
of
Puerto
Rico.
28
U.S.C. § 1332(b). The statute also prescribes that, “the legal
representative of the estate of a decedent shall be deemed to be
Civil No. 10-1476 (JAG)
5
a citizen only of the same State as the decedent, and the legal
representative of an infant or incompetent shall be deemed to be
a citizen only of the same State as the infant or incompetent.”
28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2).
According
to
Integrand,
Plaintiffs
are
representing
the
estate and should be considered citizens of Puerto Rico. They
contend that under Puerto Rico law the cause of action of a
decedent becomes a part of the estate and, since the estate in
this
case
is
considered
a
citizen
of
Puerto
Rico,
its
representatives (Plaintiffs) should also be considered citizens
of Puerto Rico. (Docket No. 30, ¶ 43).
The
Court
concedes
that
this
argument
gave
it
pause.
However, the issue has been settled in this district for some
time. In Arias-Rosado v. Gonazález-Tirado, 111 F.Supp. 2d 96
(D.P.R. 2000), it was decided that because a “succession does
not
have
existence
by
itself”
[…]
each
“heir
acquires
an
independent right over the estate and the abstract portion of
the estate that belongs to him/her immediately enters his/her
patrimony
as
an
independent
and
autonomous
value
that
only
belongs to him/her and of which he/she can dispose of with total
liberty.”
Id.
at
99
(citations
omitted).
The
Court
thus
concluded that the inherited cause of action is exercised by an
Civil No. 10-1476 (JAG)
6
heir in his or her own capacity and not as a representative of
the estate for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §1232(c).
It was also noted that the American Law Institute Study
that explains the purpose of the inclusion of the phrase “legal
representative of the estate” in the statute indicates:
[T]he phrasing "any person representing the estate of
a decedent…." does not include a person given by
statute a right to bring an action in his own name
because of a decedent's death by reason of his
relationship to the decedent (e.g., a widow or child
of the decedent); such a person retains such right of
access to a federal court as his own citizenship gives
him. The imposition upon diversity jurisdiction has
been the appointment of out-of-staters to create
diversity, and there seems no sufficient reason to
cover a person whose right to sue is because of his
relationship rather than by appointment. Arias-Rosado,
111 F.Supp. 2d at 98. (citations omitted) (Emphasis in
original).
The cited study further supports the conclusion that heirs
who bring an inherited cause of action and who are seeking to
exercise a right belonging to them are not within the statute’s
scope because they are not acting as representatives of the
estate.
In Arias-Rosado, it was also determined that if there are
non-diverse heirs, they were not to be considered indispensable
parties for any judgment to the individual heir would benefit
the rest. This aspect of Arias-Rosado has been criticized. See
Civil No. 10-1476 (JAG)
7
Cruz-Gascot v. HIMA - San Pablo Hosp. Bayamon, 728 F. Supp. 2d
14 (D.P.R. 2010). In a recent case, Jimenez v. Rodriguiez-Pagan,
597 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2010), the first Circuit discussed AriasRosado in the context of an indispensable party issue because
several non-diverse heirs were not joined as plaintiffs in order
not
to
destroy
diversity
jurisdiction.
Said
Court
expressed
concerns regarding Arias-Rosados’s interpretation of Puerto Rico
law to conclude that not all heirs have to be before a Court,
but avoided the issue by disposing of the case on other grounds.
The Court of Appeals, however, did not discuss Arias-Rodado’s
holding
regarding
the
fact
that
heirs
do
not
represent
the
estate for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §1232(c). The Court finds this
significant
for
it
may
reasonably
be
interpreted
as
a
sub
silentio endorsement of the holding.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that complete
diversity of jurisdiction exists in this case and, hence, DENIES
Integrand’s Motion to Dismiss. (Docket No. 30).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 5th day of August, 2011.
S/ Jay A. García-Gregory
JAY A. GARCÍA-GREGORY
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?