Munoz-Rivera v. Treasure Island, L.L.C. et al
Filing
10
ORDER granting in part 6 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Jay A Garcia-Gregory on 5/22/2012. (RJC)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
MUNOZ-RIVERA, et al,
Plaintiff
v.
CIVIL NO. 11-1799 (JAG)
TREASURE ISLAND, LLC, et al,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
On
January
18,
2012,
defendant
Treasure
Island,
LLC,
(“Treasure Island”) moved to dismiss the instant complaint for
lack
of
personal
jurisdiction
under
Federal
Rule
of
Civil
Procedure 12(b)(2) and, in the alternative, requested a change
of venue under Rule 12(b)(3). (Docket No. 6). For the reasons
that follow, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss. The
Court declines to make any findings with respect to the question
of venue.
BACKGROUND
On May 30, 2010, plaintiffs attended the Cirque du Soleil
show held at the Treasure Island Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada.
(Docket
No.
1,
¶
7).
After
the
show
ended,
plaintiff
Maria
Muñoz-Rivera (“Muñoz”) left her seat and started down the stairs
towards the exit. (Id., ¶ 8). Plaintiffs allege that the room
CIVIL NO. 11-1799 (JAG)
2
was poorly lit. Consequently, Muñoz was unable to see that the
stair’s handrail was not continuous. (Id.). As a result, she
fell on top of the armrest of a chair. (Id.). Muñoz was assisted
by
patrons
exiting
the
show,
and
later
by
a
hotel
security
guard, who took her to her hotel room on a wheelchair. (Id., ¶
9).
Two days later, Muñoz was taken to the nearby hospital
because her pain was escalating. (Id., ¶ 11). Radiographies were
taken
but
no
fractures
were
noted.
The
treating
physician
discharged Muñoz, and prescribed rest and pain medication. Upon
arriving in Puerto Rico, Muñoz went to the hospital once again
because her pain had not yet abated. (Id., ¶ 12). A full body
scan
revealed
multiple
rib
fractures
on
the
right
side
of
Island
is
plaintiff’s chest. (Id., ¶ 13).
The
complaint
alleges
that
defendant
Treasure
liable for plaintiffs’ damages because it failed “to provide a
safe and adequate environment for its guest.” (Id., ¶ 18). The
complaint further asserts that defendant breached its duty to
exercise
reasonable
care
given
that
it
maintained
unsafe
handrails and poor lighting conditions. (Id., ¶ 19). Plaintiffs
claim a total of three million dollars in damages, as well as
attorney’s fees and costs. (Id., p.5).
CIVIL NO. 11-1799 (JAG)
3
DISCUSSION
The complaint asserts federal jurisdiction on the basis of
diversity because plaintiffs are of Puerto Rico while defendant
Treasure
Island
is
a
citizen
of
Nevada.
28
U.S.C.
§
1332.
Defendant contends that this Court lacks general or specific
jurisdiction over their person, and as such, argue that the
present
complaint
should
be
dismissed.
Further,
defendant
asserts that the current venue is improper because this is a
tort action with its origins in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Jurisdiction
When
a
defendant
jurisdiction,
challenges
“plaintiff[s]
a
district
ultimately
bear[]
court’s
the
personal
burden
of
persuading the court that jurisdiction exists.” Mass. Sch. of
Law, Inc., v. Am. Bar Ass'n, 142 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 1998). In
conducting this analysis, the Court will consider “only whether
the
plaintiff
has
proffered
evidence
that,
if
credited,
is
enough to support findings of all facts essential to personal
jurisdiction.” Boit v. Gar-Tec Prods., Inc., 967 F.2d 671, 675
(1st Cir. 1992). But, plaintiffs may not rest on their pleadings
to defeat defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction. Rather, plaintiffs must point to specific facts
set forth in the record to show that jurisdiction exists. Id.
CIVIL NO. 11-1799 (JAG)
4
Personal jurisdiction comes in two varieties: general and
specific. See Donatelli v. National Hockey League, 893 F.2d 459,
462-63 (1st Cir. 1990). Plaintiffs do not argue, and there is no
basis to find, that defendant may be brought before this Court
under a theory of general jurisdiction.
If general jurisdiction is lacking, the Court turns to the
question of specific jurisdiction. In this case, “the district
court’s personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant is
governed
by
the
forum's
long-arm
statute.”
American
Express
Int'l, Inc. v. Mendez-Capellan, 889 F.2d 1175, 1178 (1st Cir.
1989).
Here,
the
Court
makes
this
determination
pursuant
to
Puerto Rico’s long-arm statute, Rule 4.7(a) of the Puerto Rico
Rules of Civil Procedure. P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 32 app. III, Rule
4.7.1 The First Circuit has fashioned a test to assess whether in
personam jurisdiction attaches under Rule 4.7(a):
One, there must be an act done or consummated within
the forum by the nonresident defendant.... Two, the
cause of action must arise out of the defendant's
action within the forum state. Three, the activity
linking defendant, forum and cause of action must be
substantial
enough
to
meet
the
due
process
requirements of ‘fair play and substantial justice.’
1
This statute allows Puerto Rico courts to exercise personal
jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant if that person: 1)
conducts business in Puerto Rico; 2) participated in tortious
acts in Puerto Rico; 3) was involved in a motor vehicle accident
in Puerto Rico; 4) was involved in an accident in Puerto Rico
while operating a freight or passenger transportation business
(with a few qualifications); or 4) owns, uses or possesses real
property in Puerto Rico.
CIVIL NO. 11-1799 (JAG)
5
Escude Cruz v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 619 F.2d 902, 904-05
(1st Cir. 1980).
To
begin,
failed
to
the
Court
address
notes
defendant’s
that
plaintiffs
arguments
inexplicably
regarding
lack
of
personal jurisdiction. Moreover, plaintiffs’ opposition points
to no facts outside the pleadings that would carry their burden
of proof on this issue. Rather, plaintiffs limit their arguments
to the question of venue.
On the record as it stands, the Court finds that Plaintiffs
fail the Ortho Pharmaceutical test on all fronts. Simply stated,
the
locus
of
both
the
accident
and
defendant’s
allegedly
negligent actions is in Nevada. Plaintiffs have not met their
burden
of
proof
to
show
that
defendant
has
carried
out
any
action in Puerto Rico. Thus, it is inevitable to conclude that
there is nothing “linking defendant, forum and cause of action.”
Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 619 F.2d at 904-05.
Our
finding
is
consistent
with
other
cases
involving
similar fact patterns. See Pizarro v. Hoteles Concorde Intern.,
C.A.,
907
F.2d
1256
(1st
Cir.
1990)(dismissing
a
diversity
action filed in Puerto Rico for damages occurring in an Aruba
hotel
for
Western
lack
Treasure
of
personal
Island
jurisdiction);
Resort,
962
F.2d
Fournier
126
v.
Best
(1st
Cir.
CIVIL NO. 11-1799 (JAG)
1992)(dismissing
for
lack
6
of
personal
jurisdiction
under
a
similar fact pattern).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that it lacks
personal jurisdiction over defendant Treasure Island. Given this
finding, the Court declines to enter into the issue of venue. As
such, the Court dismisses the instant case without prejudice for
want of personal jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 22nd day of May, 2012.
S/ Jay A. Garcia-Gregory
JAY A. GARCIA-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?