Rodriguez-Murphy et al v. United States of America

Filing 53

OPINION AND ORDER granting 29 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Marcos E. Lopez on 8/9/19. (YI)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

ROSA RODRIGUEZ MURPHY, et. al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CIVIL NO.: 17-1841 (MEL)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER
I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 22, 2017, Rosa Rodríguez Murphy, Edwin Maysonet, María I. Maysonet,

Giovanni Maysonet, and Princi L. Maysonet (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against the United
States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), seeking damages for Defendant’s alleged
negligent medical care and treatment of Pedro Maysonet (“Mr. Maysonet”) at the Veterans
Hospital. ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs’ claims seek redress for the damages suffered by them for the
death of their husband and father, as well as for the damages suffered by Mr. Maysonet during the
three months prior to his death, a claim now inherited by them as heirs. Id. at 6. Pending before
the court is a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ survivorship claim for failure to include all necessary
parties. ECF No. 29. In the pending motion, Defendant contends that in addition to the four
children and their mother, who are plaintiffs in this suit, Mr. Maysonet had four heirs not included
in the present action. Id. at 1–2. Defendant argues that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 19 (“Rule 19”), all heirs to an estate must be joined as parties in a survivorship action
because under Puerto Rico property law an estate is not a distinct entity separate from those

composing it, and therefore its members are indispensable parties in an inherited action. Id.
Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition in which they argue that under Rule 19, heirs are not
considered indispensable parties in a survivorship action such that would warrant dismissal of the
claim. ECF No. 32. Moreover, Plaintiffs argue that continuance of the survivorship claim would
not prejudice the rights of the missing heirs because whatever cause of action the missing heirs
may have had under the FTCA is now time-barred as the applicable statute of limitations has run;
thus, continuance of the survivorship claim can only benefit the missing heirs. Id. at 3.
II.

STANDARD FOR RULE 19 JOINDER
Pursuant to Rule 19, a necessary party is one: “(1) without whom the court cannot accord

complete relief; or (2) who claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is situated
such that disposing of the action in the person’s absence may as a practical matter impair or impede
the person’s ability to protect the interest; or (3) whose claimed interest in the subject of the action
would leave defendants subject to substantial risk of incurring multiple or otherwise inconsistent
obligations.” Cruz-Gascot v. HIMA-San Pablo Hosp. Bayamón, 728 F.Supp. 2d 14, 26–27 (D.P.R.
2010) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)). “If the court determines that someone is a necessary party
under Rule 19(a) but one that cannot be feasibly joined, then the court proceeds under Rule 19(b)
to determine ‘whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the
existing parties or should be dismissed.’” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b); In re Cambridge Biotech
Corp., 186 F.3d 1356, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
III.

LEGAL ANALYSIS
There is a split of authority in the District of Puerto Rico regarding whether heirs are

indispensable parties to a survivorship claim. See Rivera v. González, No. 15-2080 (MEL), 2017
WL 1247875, at *3 (D.P.R. 2017); Betancourt v. United States, No. 12-1326 (MEL), 2014 WL

2

5846745, at *2 (D.P.R. 2014). The First Circuit has noted the split between judges in this district
regarding the indispensability of absent heirs, but without ruling on the issue. See DelgadoCaraballo v. Hosp. Pavía Hato Rey, Inc., 889 F.3d 30, 35 (1st Cir. 2018); Cason v. Puerto Rico
Elec. Power Auth., 770 F.3d 971, 975–76 (1st Cir. 2014); Jiménez v. Rodríguez-Pagán, 597 F.3d
18, 27 (1st Cir. 2010). As the absence of a binding resolution to the issue remains, the undersigned
continues to find persuasive the holding in Betancourt and reaffirms “that heirs are indispensable
parties to a survivorship action.” 2014 WL 5846745, at *3. The reasoning deployed in Betancourt
is incorporated by reference into this opinion and order. Id. See also Delgado v. Dorado Health,
Inc., 2017 WL 2963379, at *2 (D.P.R. 2017) (Singal, J.); González v. Presbyterian Cmty. Hosp.,
Inc., 103 F. Supp. 3d 198, 199 (D.P.R. 2015) (Delgado-Hernández, J.); Pino-Betancourt v. Hosp.
Pavía Santurce, 928 F. Supp. 2d 393, 396–97 (D.P.R. 2013) (Besosa, J.) (holding that heirs are
necessary and indispensable parties to a survivorship action).
Plaintiffs’ argument that the missing heirs are not necessary and that continuance of the
survivorship claim has no effect upon their rights is untenable. Under Puerto Rico law, “a
‘sucesión’ is not an entity distinct and separate from the persons composing it” and “does not have
existence by itself as a juridical person or entity.” Pino-Betancourt, 928 F. Supp. 2d at 396. It
follows that any action taken by Plaintiffs in this suit would have an effect on the interests of the
heirs not party to this suit. For example, any form of settlement by Plaintiffs could entail an act of
alteration of the inheritance, as it may reduce the amount of damages to be inherited. Cruz-Gascot,
728 F. Supp. 2d at 26. Such alteration cannot be made without the consent of all the heirs. Id.
Therefore, as previously held by the undersigned, “a lawsuit brought by only one or some of the
heirs could prejudice the rights of others in the succession, rendering such parties necessary to the
survivorship action.” Rivera, 2017 WL 1247875, at *3.

3

Additionally, allowing a survivorship claim to continue in the absence of heirs would
incentivize future heirs to bring causes of action before a court without notifying all of the
necessary parties, and increase the likelihood of inconsistent verdicts.
Having established that Mr. Maysonet’s other heirs are necessary parties to the
survivorship claim, the next question is whether they can be joined. Plaintiffs argue that since the
applicable period to bring a cause of action under the FTCA is two years after the decedent’s death,
the missing heirs cannot file wrongful death claims against the United States. See 28 U.S.C. §
2401(b). They add that since any claim the missing heirs may have had is now time-barred by the
applicable statute of limitations, they are no longer indispensable parties, and thus the inherited
claim may proceed without their joinder. ECF No. 32, at 3. However, Plaintiffs fail to cite any
authority supporting their contention that an indispensable party becomes dispensable because of
the statute of limitations. The inquiry is whether within two years after the claim accrued all the
heirs were indispensable parties. The court answers this question in the affirmative. Nothing
prevented all the heirs from complying with this requirement and presenting a lawsuit with their
survivorship claim in a timely manner.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss the survivorship claim is

GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 9th day of August, 2019.
s/Marcos E. López
U.S. Magistrate Judge

4