Correa-Muniz et al v. Walgreen Co.
Filing
21
OPINION AND ORDER granting 11 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Daniel R. Dominguez on 9/22/2014. (MM)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
IVAN CORREA MUNIZ, ET AL.
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil No. 13-1665 (DRD)
WALGREEN CO.,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
On
Juliana
August
28,
Santoni
2013,
Pares
Plaintiffs
(“Plaintiffs”),
Ivan
Correa
representing
Muñiz
and
themselves
and as parents of JECS, filed the instant matter alleging that
Defendant Walgreen Co. (“Defendant” or “Walgreen”) is liable for
injuries suffered by JECS when it negligently dispatched a wrong
prescription medication in the minor’s name.
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Docket No.
11), Plaintiffs’ response in opposition and supplemental motion
in
opposition (Docket Nos.
(Docket No. 18).1
14 and 16), and Walgreen’s reply
The main issue in dispute amongst the parties
is whether Walgreen has sufficient contacts with Puerto Rico to
support
1
personal
jurisdiction.
For
the
reasons
discussed
On April 1, 2014, the Court entered an Order (Docket No. 15) holding in
abeyance Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and granting Plaintiffs’ request to
conduct jurisdictional discovery.
1
herein, Walgreen’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 11) is hereby
GRANTED.
I.
BACKGROUND
Walgreen Co. is a Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in Illinois (Docket No. 11-1).
Walgreen of
San Patricio, Inc. is a corporation duly organized under the
laws of Puerto Rico as of July 22, 1963 (Docket No. 11-2).
Walgreen Co. indeed has a designated office in Puerto Rico and a
resident agent (Docket No. 14-1).
Walgreens of San Patricio is
a wholly owned subsidiary of Walgreen Co. and thus both exist as
separate corporate entities (Docket No. 11-1).
Walgreen of San
Patricio maintains its accounting records at their headquarters
in
580
Marginal
Buchanan,
Puerto Rico 00966.
Id.
Extension
Villa
Caparra,
Guaynabo,
Further, Walgreen San Patricio directly
manages multiple stores in Puerto Rico and pays the salary of
its employees, all of who are covered under the State Insurance
Fund of Puerto Rico.
files
Id.
its Annual Report
Lastly, Walgreen of San Patricio
separate
Puerto Rico State Department.
On
the
other
hand,
from
fact,
www.walgreens.com
with the
Id.
Walgreen
Co.
Patricio do not have separate websites.
In
Walgreen Co.
allows
and
Walgreen
of
San
See Docket No. 14-4.
customers
to
refill
their
prescriptions online and pick them up at their local pharmacy,
contains a store locator feature, provides coupons redeemable at
2
all of their stores, provides access to the “Balance Rewards”
program, its nationwide rewards program, and allows customers to
purchase goods online and have them shipped to Puerto Rico.
See
Docket No. 14, at 5.
Walgreen
distribution
Co.
and
has
a
general
dispatch
of
standard
prescription
protocol
for
medication,
the
which
Walgreen of San Patricio specifically adapts to its pharmacies
in Puerto Rico in order to comply with both federal and local
regulations.
See Docket No. 16-1, at 4.
All of Defendant’s
pharmacies use a system called “Intercom Plus,” which is used to
scan prescriptions, prepare labels, and verify barcodes.
Id. at
4-5.
According to the complaint, on August 28, 2012, Plaintiff
Juliana Santoni went the Walgreen pharmacy located at 2505 Carr.
841,
Guaynabo,
Puerto
Rico
to
fill
a
prescription
of
TRAMADOL/APAP 37.5MG/325MG prescribed to her by Dr. M. Martino
Berio.
To
obtain
said
medicine,
a
patient
must
have
a
prescription and the prescription must show that the patient is
of legal age.
The prescription was allegedly dispatched under
Juliana Santoni’s child’s name, who was three years old at the
time.
After
picking
up
her
prescription
from
the
pharmacy,
Plaintiff Juliana Santoni arrived at her residence and placed
the Walgreen prescription bag in her medicine cabinet.
3
Juliana
Santoni had plans for that evening with friends, so the child’s
father, Plaintiff Ivan Correa, stayed home taking care of their
son.
At the time, Plaintiffs’ son had been taking Amoxicillin
400 MG to treat flu symptoms he had been experiencing.
However,
Plaintiff Ivan Correa had never administered the Amoxicillin to
his son, and was therefore not aware of what the medicine looked
like, what it was, or how it was administered.
At some point
during that evening, Juliana Santoni called the house to check
on her son and asked Ivan Correa to give the Amoxicillin to the
child.
Ivan Correa went to the medicine cabinet and retrieved the
unopened prescription bag that Juliana Santoni had placed there
earlier
in
prescription
37.5MG/325MG
Ivan
Correa
the
day.
Inside
bottle
but
prescription
containing
erroneously
then
the
labeled
proceeded
to
bag
Santoni’s
with
the
TRAMADOL/APAP
the
administer
was
child’s
one
name.
of
the
TRAMADOL/APAP 37.5MG/325MG pills to his child.
During the night, Correa went into his son’s room while he
was sleeping and discovered that the child had not only thrown
up, but was also deeply asleep.
Correa immediately called his
son’s
him
pediatrician,
who
advised
to
take
his
hospital if he threw up again to avoid dehydration.
did not throw up again that night.
4
son
to
the
The child
The
next
morning,
Juliana
Santoni
appeared drowsy and was moving slowly.
off
in
daycare,
medication
when
Juliana
she
Santoni
noticed
noticed
her
son
After dropping the child
returned
for
that
the
home
first
to
take
her
time
that
the
prescription bag she had placed in the medicine cabinet the day
before had been opened.
When she approached the child’s father
to inquire about her medication, he informed her of the events
that had transpired the previous evening.
The parents immediately took the child to the pediatrician,
who explained that the drug had most likely caused the child to
have multiple seizures during his sleep, thereby causing him to
throw up.
pharmacy
Later that day, the parents returned to the Walgreen
that
confronted
the
allegedly
store
dispatched
manager,
who
the
wrong
medication
and
immediately
apologized
and
encouraged them to take anything they wanted from the store, an
offer the Plaintiffs refused.
As a result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiffs aver that
their minor child is now afraid of sleeping alone, getting sick,
and taking any kind of medication.
II.
FED R. CIV. P. 12(B)(2) STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)(“Rule 12(b)(2)”), a
defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for lack of personal
jurisdiction.
an
evidentiary
Where, as here, the Court refrains from holding
hearing,
the
Court
5
applies
the
“prima
facie”
standard.
618-19
United States v. Swiss Am. Bank, Ltd., 274 F.3d 610,
(1st
Cir.
2001)(internal
citations
omitted);
see
generally Stars for Art Prod. FZ, LLC v. Dandana, LLC, 806 F.
Supp. 2d 437, 452 (D.Mass. 2011).
Under the prima facie standard, the plaintiff bears the
burden of establishing that the Court has personal jurisdiction
over the litigants.
Id.
To meet its burden, the plaintiff may
not rely on the pleadings.
Inc.,
478
omitted).
facts.
F.3d
19,
23
Negron-Torres v. Verizon Commc’ns,
(1st
Cir.
2007)(internal
citations
Rather, the plaintiff must proffer properly supported
Id.
The plaintiff’s evidence is assumed to be true and
construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Astro-
Med, Inc. V. Nihon Kohden Am., Inc., 591 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir.
2009)(internal citations omitted).
A defendant’s evidence is
only relevant to the extent that it is uncontradicted by the
plaintiff.
“the
Id.
plaintiff
Thus, the make-or-break standard is whether
has
proffered
evidence
that,
if
credited,
is
enough to support findings of all facts essential to personal
jurisdiction.”
Poole,
P.A.,
Daynard v. Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson &
290
F.3d
42,
50-51
citations omitted).
6
(1st
Cir.
2002)(internal
III.
To
party,
establish
the
Plaintiffs
DISCUSSION
Court’s
personal
must
satisfy
both
jurisdiction
Puerto
Rico’s
over
a
long-arm
statute and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Negron-Torres, 478 F.3d at 24 (citing Swiss Am. Bank, 274 F.3d
at 618).
to
the
As Puerto Rico’s long-arm statute extends jurisdiction
maximum
limits
imposed
by
process analysis is determinative.
the
Constitution,
the
due
Id.
Under the Due Process Clause, a plaintiff must prove the
existence of either specific or general jurisdiction.
Negron-
Torres, 478 F.3d at 24 (citing Harlow v. Children’s Hosp., 432
F.3d
50,
57
determining
exists
is
(1st
whether
“the
Cir.
2005)).
either
existence
The
specific
of
critical
or
‘minimum
nonresident defendant and the forum.”
general
contacts’
Id.
inquiry
in
jurisdiction
between
the
Therefore, the Court
must find that the nonresident defendant maintains sufficient
“minimum
contacts”
with
Puerto
Rico
so
as
to
comport
“traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
Int’l
Shoe
Co.
v.
Wash.
Office
of
Unemployment
Comp.
to
See
&
Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).
A. Specific Jurisdiction
Specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant exists
“where the cause of action arises directly out of, or related
to, the defendant’s forum-based contacts.”
7
United Elec., Radio
& Mach. Workers of Am. v. 163 Pleasant St. Corp., 960 F.2d 1080,
1089-91 (1st Cir. 1992).
The First Circuit divides the analysis
into three categories: relatedness, purposeful availment, and
reasonableness.
See Platten v. HG Bermuda Exempted Ltd., 437
F.3d 118, 135 (1st Cir. 2006).
“An affirmative finding on each
of the three elements of the test is required to support a
finding of specific jurisdiction.”
Phillips Exeter Academy v.
Howard Phillips Fund, 196 F.3d 284, 288 (1st Cir. 1999).
With regards to the first
prong, the First Circuit has
emphasized that causation is central to a relatedness finding,
accentuating that
[t]he relatedness requirement is not an open door; it
is closely read, and it requires a showing of a
material connection. This court steadfastly reject[s]
the exercise of personal jurisdiction whenever the
connection between the cause of action and the
defendant's forum-state contacts seems attenuated and
indirect....
A broad ‘but-for’ argument is generally
insufficient.
Because ‘but for’ events can be very
remote, ... due process demands something like a
‘proximate cause’ nexus.
Negron-Torres, 478 F.3d at 25 (quoting Harlow, 432 F.3d at 6162)(internal citations and quotations omitted).
The
relatedness
Defendant’s
contacts
element
with
requires
Puerto
Rico
a
and
“nexus”
Plaintiffs’
between
injury
“such . . . [that] the litigation itself is founded directly on
those activities.”
Mass. Sch. Of Law at Andover v. Am. Bar
Ass’n, 142 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 1998).
8
Plaintiffs allege that
Defendant is liable in tort for the damages they suffered when
one of its subsidiaries, Walgreen of San Patricio, negligently
dispatched
TRAMADOL/APAP
37.5MG/325MG
in
the
child’s
name
instead of his mother’s, thereby leading Plaintiff Ivan Correa
to erroneously administer said medicine to his minor child.
The
relatedness
inquiry
in
the
tort
context
concerns
whether Walgreen Co.’s contacts with Puerto Rico were the “cause
in
fact”
Mass.
and
Sch.
“legal
of
Law,
quotations omitted);
cause”
142
of
F.3d
Plaintiffs’
at
35
cause
(internal
of
action.
citations
and
Nowak v. Tak How Invs., Ltd., 94 F.3d 708,
715 (1st Cir. 1996).
Cause in fact refers to whether “the
injury would not have occurred ‘but for’ the defendant’s forumstate
activity”
whereas
legal
cause
refers
to
whether
“the
defendant’s in-state conduct gave birth to the cause of action.”
Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted).
Defendant’s contacts with Puerto Rico, mainly through the
use
of
its
facilities
interactive
the
website
prescription
www.walgreens.com,
refilling
relationship to Plaintiffs alleged harm.
process,
which
bares
no
Www.walgreens.com is
neither the but-for or actual cause of Plaintiffs injury because
there is no indication that Plaintiffs used walgreens.com to
refill
the
dispatched.
prescription
which
was
allegedly
negligently
Hurley v. Cancun Playa Oasis Int’l Hotels, No. 99–
574, 1999 WL 718556, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 31, 1999)(holding that
9
the plaintiff’s tort claim did not arise out of the defendant’s
website because the plaintiff did not contend that he used the
website to make a reservation).
Plaintiffs would have fared no
better had they argued that they had utilized walgreens.com to
refill their prescriptions, as they simply cannot establish that
the website is causally related to their injuries.
injury
would
have
occurred
regardless
of
Plaintiffs’
Walgreen’s
contacts
with Puerto Rico, as there is simply no evidence that Defendant
Walgreen Co.’s in-state conduct gave rise to Plaintiffs’ tort
claim.
In
proven,
fact,
clearly
directly
Plaintiffs’
establish
caused
by
factual
that
assertions,
Plaintiffs’
Walgreen’s
if
alleged
subsidiary,
a
readily
harm
Puerto
was
Rico
corporation.
Hence, Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the requirements of the
relatedness test, as Walgreen’s contacts with Puerto Rico were
not the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries.
See United
Elec.,
reject
960
exercise
between
F.2d
of
the
at
1089
personal
cause
of
(“First,
we
jurisdiction
action
and
steadfastly
whenever
the
the
the
connection
defendant’s
forum-state
contacts seems attenuated and indirect.”).
In the instant case,
Defendant’s contacts with Puerto Rico do not reach the requisite
threshold,
as
there
important,
or
at
is
least
no
“in-state
material,
conduct”
element
of
forming
proof.”
“an
Id.
(quoting Marino v. Hyatt Corp., 793 F.2d 427, 430 (1st Cir.
10
1986))(internal quotations omitted).
As an affirmative finding
on each of the three elements is required, the Court need not go
further
as
to
the
remaining
Academy, 196 F.3d at 288.
elements.
See
Phillips
Exeter
As such, the Court lacks specific
personal jurisdiction over Walgreen Co.
B. General Jurisdiction
Federal district courts have general jurisdiction when “the
litigation is not directly founded on the defendant’s forumbased contacts, but the defendant has nevertheless engaged in
continuous and systematic activity, unrelated to the suit, in
the forum state.”
arguments
regards
to
to
United Elec., 960 F.2d at 1088.
support
a
Walgreen’s
finding
of
general
contacts
in
Puerto
Plaintiffs’
jurisdiction
Rico
are
with
twofold.
First, Plaintiffs aver that Walgreen has engaged in continuous
and
systematic
activity
in,
in
and
Puerto
control
Rico
by
over,
virtue
of
its
Walgreen
of
San
ownership
interest
Patricio.
Second, Plaintiffs argue that Walgreen has engaged in
continuous and systematic activity with Puerto Rico by virtue of
its
relationship
with
Puerto
Rico,
independent
of
its
subsidiary.
Piercing the Corporate Veil
Plaintiffs argue that Walgreen of San Patricio’s contacts
with
Puerto
Rico
are
attributable
11
to
Walgreen
Co.
because
Walgreen Co. is Walgreen of San Patricio’s parent and alter-ego.
The Court is unpersuaded.
The Court may not exercise personal jurisdiction over a
parent corporation simply by virtue of its subsidiary’s contacts
with the forum.
Negron-Torres, 478 F.3d at 27 (citing Escude
Cruz v. Ortho Pharm. Corp., 619 F.2d 902, 905 (1st Cir. 1980).
The
Court
may,
under
certain
circumstances,
“pierce
the
corporate veil” to attribute the subsidiary’s contacts to the
parent.
Id.
Puerto Rico law determines whether veil piercing
is warranted.
Id.
To pierce the corporate veil under Puerto
Rico law, Plaintiffs must produce “strong and robust evidence .
. . showing the parent to have that degree of control over the
subsidiary as to render the latter a mere shell for the former.”
Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted).
In
the
case
at
bar,
Plaintiffs
fail
to
present
any
pleading, let alone strong and robust pleadings, showing that
Walgreen Co. exercised sufficient control over Walgreen of San
Patricio to warrant piercing the corporate veil.
Plaintiffs
aver that both Walgreen and Walgreen of San Patricio: (1) do
business
as
customers
Walgreen
logos,
system;
Walgreens;
can
refill
pharmacies
(4)
share
their
share
marketing
a
the
same
prescriptions
nationwide;
advertisements,
and
(2)
(3)
image
standard
12
share
website,
online
common
and
protocol,
and
wherein
local
trademarks,
integrated
sales
established
by
Walgreen, for the distribution and/or dispatch of pharmaceutical
drugs.
(Docket Nos. 14 and 16).
These facts, without more, simply indicate that Walgreen
Co.
and
Walgreen
relationship.
of
San
Patricio
share
a
close
branding
See Diamond Chem. Co. v. Atofina Chems., Inc.,
268 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8-9 (D.D.C. 2003)(“Joint promotion without
more does not mandate the finding that a subsidiary is a mere
shell for its parent corporation.”).
There is no indication in
of the pleadings that Walgreen disregards corporate formalities,
exercises
control
operations,
had
over
Walgreen
overlapping
of
San
directors
Patricio’s
and
day-to-day
personnel,
Walgreen of San Patricio was undercapitalized.
or
that
See De Castro v.
Sanifill, Inc., 198 F.3d 282, 284 (1st Cir. 1999); see also
Satellite Broad. Cable, Inc. v. Telefonica de Espana, 786 F.
Supp. 1089, 1100 (D. Puerto Rico 1992).
Rather, the evidence
indicates that Walgreen and Walgreen of San Patricio operate
independently.
Walgreen of San Patricio owns and operates the
pharmacy where the alleged tortious incident transpired, files
independent
independently
annual
obtains
reports,
all
has
necessary
its
own
licensing
headquarters,
and
permits
required by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, maintains separate
accounting books, and pays the salaries of its employees, who
are all covered under the State Insurance Fund of Puerto Rico.
See Docket No. 11-1.
13
Accordingly, the Court finds there is neither strong nor
robust evidence demonstrating that Walgreen of San Patricio is
but a mere shell of its parent, Walgreen Co.
Walgreen Co.’s Contacts With Puerto Rico
Lastly, Plaintiffs argue that Walgreen Co. has sufficient
minimum contacts in Puerto Rico, standing alone, to warrant the
exercise
of
personal
jurisdiction.
The
Court
may
exercise
general jurisdiction over Walgreen Co. if Plaintiffs establish
that:
(1)
Walgreens
Co.
has
sufficient
contacts
with
Puerto
Rico; (2) that said contacts with Puerto Rico are purposeful;
and (3) maintaining jurisdiction is reasonable.
Cossaboon v.
Me. Med. Ctr., 600 F.3d 25, 32 (1st Cir. 2010)(citing Harlow v.
Children’s Hosp., 432 F.3d 50, 57 (1st Cir. 2005)).
are
deemed
rather
sufficient
if
isolated
and
than
omitted);
see
determining
generally
whether
they
are
systematic
casual.
Int’l
Walgreen’s
Shoe,
and
Id.
(internal
326
U.S.
contacts
with
at
Puerto
Contacts
continuous
citations
317.
Rico
In
are
sufficient, the Court’s analysis is “highly idiosyncratic” and
fact specific, not “mechanical or qualitative.”
citations omitted).
Id. (internal
At first glance, it seems like the Court
has general jurisdiction over Defendant Walgreen Co.; however,
after conducting an in-depth analysis of the underlying factual
allegations, we conclude that maintaining jurisdiction would not
be reasonable.
14
According
to
Plaintiffs,
Walgreen
Co.
has
sufficient
purposeful contacts in Puerto Rico given that it: (1) conducts a
nationwide promotional campaign for all of its pharmacies; (b)
provides services nationwide, such as refilling prescriptions;
(c) has only one website covering all of its pharmacies wherein
Puerto Rico resident can purchase goods and have them shipped to
the island; and (d) has a designated office for Puerto Rico and
a Resident Agent.
See Docket No. 14, at 3-8.
We agree.
Plaintiffs aver, and the Court concurs, that the Defendant
has sufficient minimum contacts with Puerto Rico due to the
interactive
nature
of
its
website,
the
fact
that
it
is
registered as a Foreign Corporation authorized to do business at
the Department of State for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and
has both a registered agent and a designated office for this
jurisdiction.
Walgreen Co. directly provides services to its Puerto Rican
customers through their website, www.walgreens.com (Docket No.
14, at 5).
prescriptions
Said website permits individuals to refill their
online
at
the
pharmacy
of
their
choosing
and
allows individuals to use the “Store Locator” feature to locate
Walgreen pharmacies nationwide.
Further, customers may purchase
goods online and have them shipped to Puerto Rico.
A website is sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction if
“the
defendant
has
actually
15
and
purposefully
conducted
commercial
or
other
transactions
through its websites.”
added)(collecting
maintaining
necessary,
a
website
as
forum
state
residents
Cossaboon, 600 F.3d at 35 (emphasis
cases).
“such
with
Something
accessible
interactive
to
more
than
everyone
features
simply
online
which
is
allow
successful online ordering of the defendant’s products.”
the
McBee
v. Delica Co., Ltd., 417 F.3d 107, 124 (1st Cir. 2005)(“The mere
existence
of
a
website
does
not
show
that
a
defendant
is
directing its business activities towards every forum where the
website is visible....”).
The
facts
clearly
demonstrate
that
Defendant’s
contacts
with Puerto Rico, through www.walgreens.com, are continuous and
systematic.
Defendant’s website not only allows customers to
refill their prescriptions online, but provides for the online
sale of products to Puerto Rico consumers.2
Thus, Plaintiffs
have satisfied the first two prongs.
We
now
turn
to
whether
exercising
jurisdiction
Walgreen is reasonable under the circumstances.
600 F.3d at 33.
over
See Cossaboon,
This third requirement is “secondary rather
than primary; unless the defendant has some cognizable contacts
2
Plaintiffs’ assertion that Defendant has sufficient contacts with Puerto
Rico through its registered agent and local office is unavailing, as
appointing a registered agent for service of process purposes and maintaining
an office that is currently not conducting any business does not amount to
continuous and systematic for minimum contact purposes.
See Sandstrom v.
ChemLawn Corp., 904 F.2d 83, 88-90 (1st Cir. 1990).
16
with
the
proposed
jurisdiction.”
forum,
the
court
cannot
assert
general
Id. (quoting Sandstrom, 904 F.2d at 89)(internal
quotations omitted).
In analyzing the reasonableness inquiry,
courts weigh the so-called “Gestalt factors,” which include:
(1) the defendant's burden of appearing, (2) the forum
state's interest in adjudicating the dispute, (3) the
plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and
effective relief, (4) the judicial system's interest
in obtaining the most effective resolution of the
controversy, and (5) the common interests of all
sovereigns in promoting substantive social policies.
Harlow, 432 F.3d at 66-67 (“Even where purposefully generated
contacts exist, courts must consider a panoply of other factors
which bear upon the fairness of subjecting a nonresident to the
authority
of
a
foreign
tribunal.”)(internal
citations
and
quotations omitted); see U.S. v. Swiss American Bank, Ltd., 274
F.3d 610, 619 (1st Cir. 2001)(plaintiff must demonstrate that
exercising jurisdiction would be reasonable).
At the outset, the Court notes as to the first factor that
Defendant’s burden of appearing in Puerto Rico would be minimal.
This
first
demonstrate
factor
some
is
kind
“only
of
meaningful
special
or
where
unusual
a
party
burden,”
can
which
Walgreen Co., a multi-billion dollar corporation, has failed to
do.
Pritzker v. Yari, 42 F.3d 53, 64 (1st Cir. 1994).
Thus,
the first factor weighs in Plaintiffs’ favor.
The
second,
parties favor.
third,
and
fourth
factors
weigh
in
neither
For purposes of this analysis, it is important
17
to stress that Defendant Walgreen Co.
does not contend
that
Plaintiffs do not have a valid cause of action, they are simply
accentuating
that
the
proper
Walgreen of San Patricio.
Defendant
is
their
subsidiary,
Hence, Walgreen Co. argues that the
appropriate forum to litigate this dispute is the Court of First
Instance of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as the appropriate
parties are all citizens of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Therefore,
the
jurisdiction
borders
over
will
regardless
interests
of
one
remain
the
who
of
causes
intact,
forum.
Puerto
as
Rico
tortious
Puerto
Additionally,
in
exercising
injury
Rico
within
law
its
applies
Plaintiffs
have
not
shown how they would be inconvenienced by having to litigate
this case in state court or how the administration of justice
would be impeded by having to litigate the instant matter in the
state tribunal against Walgreen of San Patricio.
However, the fifth and final factor weighs heavily in the
Defendant’s favor.
In the case at bar, Plaintiffs are suing
Walgreen Co., the parent company of the subsidiary where the
alleged
harm
jurisdiction.
occurred,
As
we
merely
to
previously
achieve
discussed,
federal
diversity
Walgreen
of
San
Patricio is an independently run subsidiary of Walgreen Co., and
the alleged tortious actions occurred as a result of the alleged
negligence of individuals employed and supervised by Walgreen of
San Patricio.
No evidence has been presented demonstrating that
18
Plaintiffs utilized www.walgreens.com to refill the prescription
that eventually harmed their minor child.
In fact, there is no
evidence whatsoever that Defendant’s contacts with Puerto Rico,
as minimal as they are, in any way contributed to the harm
suffered by Plaintiffs and their minor son.
considerations
weigh
corporation
litigate
to
heavily
a
against
case
in
Therefore, policy
subjecting
federal
court
a
foreign
when
said
corporation did not cause Plaintiffs’ harm.
Hence, exercising general jurisdiction over Walgreen Co. to
entertain Plaintiffs’ causes of action would be unreasonable,
especially given the fact that Plaintiffs can file suit in state
court
against
Walgreen
of
Defendant in the case at bar.
San
Patricio,
the
appropriate
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion
to Dismiss for Lack of Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdiction
(Docket No. 11) is hereby GRANTED.3
3
Lastly, the Court notes that in Gonzalez v. Walgreens Co., 878 F.2d 560
(1st Cir. 1989), the First Circuit determined that the U.S. District Court in
Puerto Rico lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant Walgreen Co.
The
First Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that
Walgreen Co. was liable for the acts of its subsidiary, Walgreen of San
Patricio, under an agency theory. Id.
19
IV.
For
the
aforementioned
CONCLUSION
reasons,
the
Court
hereby
GRANTS
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal and Subject
Matter Jurisdiction (Docket No. 11).
Judgment of dismissal is
to be entered as to Walgreen Co.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 22nd day of September, 2014.
/s/ DANIEL R. DOMÍNGUEZ
DANIEL R. DOMÍNGUEZ
U.S. District Judge
20
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?