Hernandez et al v. Colegio y Noviciado Santa Maria del Camino, Inc.

Filing 112

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re 60 Motion for Reconsideration. Defendants' motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Judge Francisco A. Besosa on 11/20/2013. (brc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
ELAINE HERNANDEZ and I.C.H., a
minor, by ELAINE HERNANDEZ, her
mother,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CIVIL NO. 12-2052 (FAB)

COLEGIO Y NOVICIADO SANTA MARIA
DEL CAMINO, INC. d/b/a COLEGIO
SANTA MARIA DEL CAMINO; E.S.L.,
a minor, by JOHN DOE, MARY DOE
and their conjugal partnership;
MAPFRE PRAICO INSURANCE COMPANY;
and ABC INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BESOSA, District Judge.
At the initial scheduling conference on July 12, 2013, the
Court granted plaintiff until July 19, 2013 to file her motion for
leave to amend the complaint.

(Docket 56 at 1.)

The Court also

granted defendants time to respond to plaintiff’s motion until
August 16, 2013.

Id. at 2.

In accordance with the initial

scheduling conference, plaintiff submitted her motion for leave on
July 19, 2013.

(Docket 57.)

The Court granted the motion later

that day, however, without allowing defendants until August 16,
2013 to respond.

(Docket 58.)

Consequently, plaintiff filed her

second amended complaint on July 22, 2013.

(Docket 59.)

On

August 7, 2013, defendants MAPFRE Praico Insurance Company and

Civil No. 12-2052 (FAB)

2

Colegio y Noviciado Santa Maria del Camino, Inc. filed a motion for
reconsideration, requesting that the Court reconsider its July 19,
2013 order and instead deny plaintiff leave to amend.
& 65.)

(Dockets 60

Having considered defendants’ motion and plaintiff’s

response, (Docket 67), the Court DENIES defendants’ motion.
I.

Article 1802 Tort Claim and Amended Damages
Defendants

allege

that

the

addition

of

plaintiff’s

article 1802 tort claim, as well as amended damages suffered, are
time-barred.

The

Court

disagrees.

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure 15(c) provides that an amendment to a pleading “relates
back” to the date of the original pleading when “the amendment
asserts

a

claim

or

defense

that

arose

out

of

the

conduct,

transaction, or occurrence set out — or attempted to be set out —
in

the

original

pleading.”

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

15(c)(1)(B).

Defendants acknowledge, and the Court agrees, that plaintiff’s
article 1802 claim is predicated on the alleged sexual molestation
incident of January 24, 2011, the same set of facts as the original
complaint.

(Dockets 60 at p. 8; 59 at pp. 12–13.)

The same is

true of plaintiff Hernandez’s damages arising from the sexual
molestation incident.

Accordingly, the article 1802 claim and

amended damages “relate back” to the date of the original pleading

Civil No. 12-2052 (FAB)

3

and are deemed to have been timely filed.1

Defendants’ motion to

reconsider on the ground that plaintiff’s article 1802 claim and
damages resulting from the sexual molestation incident are timebarred, therefore, is DENIED.
II.

“Futility” Argument
The rest of defendants’ motion advances the proposition that

plaintiff’s amendments cause undue prejudice and are “futile.”
(See

Docket

60

at

pp.

11–15.)

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure 15(a) provides that leave to amend “shall be freely given
when justice so requires,” Colmenares Vivas v. Sun Alliance Ins.
Co., 807 F.2d 1102, 1108 (1st Cir. 1986) (citation omitted), and if
a court decides not to allow the amendment, it must do so for a
valid reason “such as undue delay, . . . undue prejudice to the
opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of
amendment, etc.”

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).

Defendants have not persuaded the Court that they have been or
will be unduly harmed by plaintiff’s amendments. They merely state
that they will “have to incur additional legal fees and expenses”
in order to answer the second amended complaint.
12, & 14.)

Additional discovery costs, however, are inherent to

the litigation process.

1

(Docket 60 at 11,

See, e.g., N. Ca. River Watch v. Ecodyne

Defendants’ argument regarding whether plaintiff Hernandez’s
June 6, 2012 letter constitutes an extrajudicial claim that tolls
the statute of limitations, (Docket 60 at p. 8), is irrelevant to
the relation back doctrine.

Civil No. 12-2052 (FAB)

4

Corp., 2013 WL 146324 (N.D. Cal. 2013).

Moreover, plaintiff’s

second amended complaint adds only three pages — the majority of
which consist of the new article 1802 claim — and defendants have
subsequently filed motions based on the sufficiency of the second
amended complaint.

Accordingly, no evidence of undue prejudice

exists.
The Court is also unpersuaded that plaintiff’s amendments are
“futile.”
fail

to

“‘Futility’ means that the complaint, as amended, would
state

a

claim

upon

which

relief

could

be

granted.”

Glassman v. Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 623 (1st Cir. 1996)
(citing 3 Moore’s Federal Practice P 15.08[4], at 15–80 (2d ed.
1993)) (additional citation omitted).

“[T]he appropriateness vel

non of a district court decision denying a motion to amend on the
ground of futility depends, in the first instance, on the posture
of the case.”

Hatch v. Dep’t. for Children, Youth & Their

Families, 274 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir. 2001).

The First Circuit Court

of Appeals explains:
If leave to amend is sought before discovery is complete
and neither party has moved for summary judgment, the
accuracy of the “futility” label is gauged by reference
to the liberal criteria of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). In this situation, amendment is not
deemed futile as long as the proposed amended complaint
sets forth a general scenario which, if proven, would
entitle the plaintiff to relief against the defendant on
some cognizable theory.

Civil No. 12-2052 (FAB)

5

Id. (citations omitted).2

The more liberal standard of futility

review applies here because plaintiff moved to amend the complaint
well before the end of discovery,3 and no motion for summary
judgment has been filed.

Having reviewed the second amended

complaint and defendants’ challenge, the Court does not find that
defendants proved that plaintiff’s claims would be subject to
dismissal

pursuant

to

Rule

12(b)(6).

Their

motion

for

reconsideration is entirely bereft of legal analysis demonstrating
that plaintiff is unable to recover under any viable theory.
Because defendants have done nothing more than “mention a possible
argument

in

the

most

skeletal

way,

leaving

the

Court

to

do

counsel’s work, create the ossature for the argument, and put flesh
on its bones,” United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir.
1990), the Court declines to find that plaintiff’s amendments are
futile.

Defendants

are

not

precluded

from

filing

—

and

subsequently have indeed submitted — motions to dismiss reasserting
their

challenges

with

fully-developed

arguments.

The

Court,

2

When reviewing a motion to amend a complaint for futility,
the district court applies the same standard it would apply to a
motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Glassman, 90 F.
3d at 623. This means that “there is no practical difference, in
terms of review, between a denial of a motion to amend based on
futility and the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim.” Id.
3

The discovery
(Docket 29 at p. 8.)

deadline

is

set

for

March

14,

2014.

Civil No. 12-2052 (FAB)

6

therefore, will take up the 12(b)(6) sufficiency of the complaint
at a later juncture.
III. Conclusion
For

the

reasons

discussed

above,

defendants’

motion

for

reconsideration, (Docket 60), is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
San Juan, Puerto Rico, November 20, 2013.
s/ FRANCISCO A. BESOSA
FRANCISCO A. BESOSA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE