Rodriguez-Vazquez et al v. Hospital Episcopal Cristo Redentor, Inc. et al
Filing
30
OPINION AND ORDER denying 23 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Jose Rivera-Irizarry, Conjugal Partnership Rivera-Doe, Jane Doe, Hospital Episcopal Cristo Redentor, Inc. Jury Trial set for 2/6/2012 09:30 AM in Courtroom 7 before Judge Jose A Fuste.Signed by Judge Jose A Fuste on 12/22/2011.(mrj)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
SARA RODRIGUEZ VAZQUEZ,
ROBERTO ANES CLAUDIO, individually
and in representation of their minor son,
RLAR,
7
Plaintiffs,
8
Civil No. 10-2216 (JAF)
v.
9
10
HOSPITAL EPISCOPAL CRISTO, et. al.,
Defendants.
11
12
OPINION AND ORDER
13
As a result of yesterday’s hearing on the subject of diversity jurisdiction, we find that
14
there are no indications on this record that diversity was “manufactured” to gain access to
15
federal court. (See Docket No. 27.)
16
We also decide on the basis of Centro Médico Del Turabo v. Departamento de Salud Del
17
Estado Libre de P.R., 181 P.R. Dec. 72 n.1 (2011), that the forum selection clause at issue in
18
this case is illegal and unenforceable.1 As noted by the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, Puerto Rico
19
has statutorily prohibited forum selection clauses presented to patients as part of the informed
20
consent process in obtaining medical treatment. Id. (citing P.R. Dep’t of Health, Regulation
1
To obtain treatment for her minor son, on March 26, 2010, co-plaintiff Sarah Rodríguez-Vázquez
signed the document at issue, which purported to limit her options for litigation, and obligate herself to
“present a claim only and exclusively before the consideration of the First Instance Court of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guayama Part.” (See Docket No. 25-2.)
Civil No. 10-2216 (JAF)
-2-
1
117-A, amended by Office of the Patient's Advocate of P.R., Regulation 7617 of November 21,
2
2008).
3
We reject Defendants’ arguments based on Rivera v. Centro Medico de Turabo, Inc., 575
4
F.3d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 2009) (enforcing similar forum selection clause signed as part of hospital
5
consent forms). At the time of the relevant events in Rivera, Regulation 117-A had not yet been
6
amended to prohibit such clauses and, thus, no conflict existed yet between federal common law
7
and the laws of Puerto Rico regarding the enforceability of forum selection clauses.2
8
Following the First Circuit’s lead, we “sidestep the Erie question, of whether to treat the
9
issue of a forum selection clause’s enforceability as ‘procedural’ (and so look to federal law for
10
a test) or as ‘substantive’ (and instead look to state law).” Huffington v. T.C. Grp., 637 F.3d
11
18, 23 (1st Cir. 2011) (citations omitted) (citing Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64
12
(1938)). Under either framework, the clause would be unenforceable.
13
If we treated enforceability as “procedural” and employed federal common law, we
14
would find the clause unenforceable because “enforcement would contravene a strong public
15
policy of the forum in which suit is brought, whether declared by statute or by judicial
16
decision.” The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 15 (1972). As noted by the Puerto
17
Rico Supreme Court, such clauses had been prohibited by statute, and enforcement would
18
unquestionably contravene Puerto Rico’s interest in enforcement of its laws.
2
The First Circuit noted that, after the initial briefing in Rivera in 2008, the Office of the Patient’s
Advocate of Puerto Rico was regulating to prohibit forum selection clauses contained in the consent forms
required for medical treatment. The Rivera court, however, found that because “the regulation [was] neither
retroactive nor written in terms indicating an intent to codify some pre-existing public policy judgment, it [did]
not help [the Rivera appellants].” 575 F.3d at 23.
Civil No. 10-2216 (JAF)
-3-
1
Treating enforceability as “substantive” would yield the same result. The clause was
2
illegal and invalid under Commonwealth law, which provides “the substantive rules of decision
3
. . . including relevant rules governing contract interpretation” in a diversity case. Avery v.
4
Hughes, 661 F.3d 690 (1st Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). The forum selection clause was
5
unenforceable at the time of signing.
6
7
For the above reasons, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED. (Docket
No. 23.) Trial shall be held on February 6, 2012, at 9:30 A.M.
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 22nd day of December, 2011.
10
11
12
s/ José Antonio Fusté
JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE
U.S. 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?