Taboas v. Fiddler Gonzalez Rodriguez, PSC

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re 25 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and re 31 Motion for Leave to File. Plaintiff Taboas' motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED. The Court GRANTS defendant FGR's motion for leave to amend its answer and accepts the amended answer. The answer shall be filed as a separate document no later than January 8, 2014. Signed by Judge Francisco A. Besosa on 01/03/2013. (brc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
MARIA DEL CARMEN TABOAS,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL NO. 13-1205 (FAB)

v.
FIDDLER, GONZALEZ & RODRIGUEZ,
PSC,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BESOSA, District Judge.
Before the Court are plaintiff Maria del Carmen Taboas’
(“Taboas”) motion for partial judgment on the pleadings; Fiddler,
Gonzalez & Rodriguez PSC’s (“FGR”) opposition; FGR’s motion for
leave to file an amended answer to the complaint; and Taboas’
opposition.

(Docket Nos. 25, 30, 31, & 32.)

For the following

reasons, the Court DENIES Taboas’ motion for partial judgment and
GRANTS FGR’s motion for leave to amend its answer.
I.

Procedural and Factual Background
On March 8, 2013, plaintiff Taboas filed a complaint against

FGR asserting a claim of discriminatory discharge based on age
pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and
Puerto Rico Law 100 and a claim for wrongful termination in
violation of Puerto Rico Law 80.

(Docket No. 1.)

With regard to

the latter claim, paragraph 5.3 of the complaint states:
FGR

terminated

Taboas’

employment

without

just

cause.”

“5.3.
Id.

Civil No. 13-1205 (FAB)
Paragraph 5.4 states:

2
“5.4.

Taboas is entitled to recover a

severance payment as determined by Law 80, which is estimated in an
amount no less than $300,000.00, plus attorney’s fees equivalent to
not less than 15% of that amount.”

Id.

On May 1, 2013, FGR filed

an answer to the complaint which denied paragraph 5.3 and admitted
paragraph 5.4 (Docket No. 9.)
of

affirmative

paragraph 5.4.

defenses

FGR’s answer also included a number

inconsistent

with

an

admission

of

Id.

Taboas contends that this admission constitutes a judicial
admission warranting the entry of partial judgment on the pleadings
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) holding that
Taboas is entitled to the Law 80 severance.

(Docket No. 25.)

FGR

contends that because paragraph 5.4 was admitted by mistake, it
does

not

constitute

a

judicial

judgment on the pleadings.

admission

warranting

(Docket No. 30.)

partial

FGR simultaneously

seeks leave pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) to
amend its answer to the complaint to deny paragraph 5.4.
No. 31.)

Taboas opposes this motion on the grounds that amendment

is untimely and causes undue prejudice to the plaintiff.
No. 32.)
II.

(Docket

(Docket

The Court addresses these arguments in turn.

Discussion
A.

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
A

court

considering

a

motion

for

judgment

on

the

pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) must

Civil No. 13-1205 (FAB)

3

“accept all of the nonmovant’s well-pleaded factual averments as
true, and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor.”
Gomez v. de Castro, 843 F.2d 631, 635 (1st Cir. 1998).

Rivera-

The motion

should not be granted “unless it appears beyond a doubt that the
monmoving party can prove no set of facts in support of her claim
which would entitle her to relief.” Feliciano v. Rhode Island, 160
F.3d 780, 788 (1st Cir. 1998).
Plaintiff Taboas asks the Court to grant judgment in her
favor on the Law 80 wrongful termination claim based on defendant
FGR’s admission of paragraph 5.4 in the answer to the complaint.
(Docket

No.

25.)

Paragraph

5.4

does

not

contain

factual

allegations, but rather a legal conclusion regarding Taboas’ right
to recover.

(Docket No. 1 at ¶ 5.4.)

The Court is not obligated

to accept such a legal conclusion as a binding judicial admission,
see Harrington v. Nashua, 610 F.3d 24, 31 (1st Cir. 2010) (citing
case law for the proposition that legal conclusions are not binding
judicial admissions), and consequently declines to do so.

Thus,

absent such a judicial admission, a plain reading of the complaint
and the answer reveals that material facts regarding plaintiff’s
claims and defendant’s affirmative defenses remain in dispute and
judgment

on

the

pleadings

is

not

appropriate.

The

Court

accordingly DENIES plaintiff’s motion for partial judgment on the
pleadings.

Civil No. 13-1205 (FAB)
B.

4

Leave to Amend Pleadings
Because FGR seeks to amend a pleading well past the

deadline set by the Court in its Case Management Order (Docket
No. 10), it appropriately requests the Court’s leave to do so.
(Docket No. 31.) A party may amend a pleading more than twenty-one
days after service “with the opposing party’s written consent or
the court’s leave,” which should be “freely give[n] when justice so
requires.”
grant

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2).

leave

circumstances

to

amend

and

must

the

context

A court deciding whether to

consider
of

the

the

totality

request.

of

Nikitine

the
v.

Wilmington Trust Co., 715 F.3d 388, 390 (1st Cir. 2013).
Given

FGR’s

denial

of

paragraphs

including

factual

allegations that are directly relevant to paragraph 5.4’s legal
conclusions, as well as FGR’s affirmative defenses denying similar
legal and factual allegations regarding Taboas’s termination, the
Court finds that the totality of the circumstances and context
clearly demonstrate that paragraph 5.4 was admitted in error.
Plaintiff Taboas’ skeletal contentions that an amended answer is
untimely and/or prejudicial to the plaintiff do not otherwise
persuade the Court.

Accordingly, justice requires that FGR be

permitted to amend its answer to deny paragraph 5.4, bringing it in
line with the remainder of its answer.
amend its answer is GRANTED.

FGR’s motion for leave to

Civil No. 13-1205 (FAB)

5

III. Conclusion
For the reasons expressed above, plaintiff Taboas’ motion for
judgment on the pleadings is DENIED.

The Court GRANTS defendant

FGR’s motion for leave to amend its answer and accepts the amended
answer.

(Docket No. 31-1.)

The answer shall be filed as a

separate document no later than January 8, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
San Juan, Puerto Rico, January 3, 2014.
s/ Francisco A. Besosa
FRANCISCO A. BESOSA
United States District Judge