Acosta-Robledo v. Furiel Auto Corp. et al

Filing 37

AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER granting 31 Motion to dismiss. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Marcos E. Lopez on 3/11/2015. (MT)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
CHINAIS ACOSTA ROBLEDO
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL NO.: 14-1693 (MEL)
FURIEL AUTO CORP. and
FRANCISCO FURIEL RAMOS-MARTÍNEZ
Defendants.
AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER
I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 10, 2013, Chinais Acosta-Robledo (“Acosta-Robledo” or “plaintiff”) filed an

amended complaint against Furiel Auto Corp. (“Furiel Auto”) and Francisco Furiel RamosMartínez (“Ramos-Martínez”) (collectively “defendants”), alleging claims pursuant to Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000(e), et
seq., and for violations of rights guaranteed by the P.R. Const., Art. II, §§ 1, 16, and numerous
local statues, including Law No. 100 of June 30, 1959, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29 § 146, et seq.
(“Law 100”), Law No. 69 of July 6, 1985 (“Law 69”), P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, § 1321, et seq.,
Law No. 17 of April 22, 1988, P.R. Laws An. Tit. 29 § 155, et seq. (“Law 17”), and Articles
1802 and 1803 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, 31 P.R. Laws Ann. §§ 5141-5142. ECF No. 24.
Pending before the court is defendants’ motion to dismiss claims under Articles 1802 and 1803
of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, 32 Laws Ann §§ 5141-5142 and plaintiff’s response in
opposition. ECF Nos. 31; 32. For the reasons that follow, defendants’ motion to dismiss is
granted.

II.

LEGAL ANALYSIS
When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must limit its focus

to the allegations of the complaint. Litton Indus., Inc. v. Colón, 587 F.2d 70, 72 (1st Cir. 1978).
Specifically, the inquiry should be “whether a liberal reading of [the complaint] can reasonably
admit of a claim . . . .” Id. An evaluation of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) requires the
court to “accept as true ‘all well-pleaded factual averments and indulg[e] all reasonable
inferences in plaintiff=s favor.’” Doyle v. Hasbro, Inc., 103 F.3d 186, 190 (1st Cir. 1996)
(quoting Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1996)). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is
appropriate only if the facts alleged, taken as true, do not warrant recovery. Aulson, 83 F.3d at 3.
Article 1802 provides that a person who “causes damages to another through fault or
negligence” shall be liable in damages. P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5141. A plaintiff may not bring
claims under Articles 1802 and 1803 based on the same allegations which underlie a pregnancy
discrimination claim pursuant to Law 100. Medina v. Adecco, 561 F.Supp.2d 162, 176 (D.P.R.
2008) (dismissing Article 1802 claim based on the same conduct that supports her claims under
Law 80, Law 100, Law 69, and Law 3 as the plaintiff did not alleged any independently tortious
conduct); Zayas-Nuñez v. Selectos Campo Rico, Inc., No. CIV. 14-1464 GAG, 2014 WL
5817537, at 5 (D.P.R. Nov. 10, 2014) (dismissing tort claims under Article 1802 as precluded by
Law 17, Law 69, and Law 100 claims). A review of the amended complaint does not reveal
allegations of any tortious conduct that is distinct and independent from that which is related to
plaintiff’s sexual harassment and discrimination claims related to her pregnancy. See ECF No.
24. In short, the allegations set forth in the amended complaint for which the plaintiff seeks
damages are covered by special labor legislation. For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion

2

to dismiss (ECF No. 31) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants under Articles
1802 and 1803 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, 32 PR Laws Ann. §§ 5141-5142 are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 11th day of March, 2015.
s/Marcos E. López
U.S. Magistrate Judge

3