Calderon Amezquita v. Rivera Cruz
Filing
728
OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth in this Opinion and Order, the Court DENIES 644 Defendant's Motion in Limine and DENIES IN PART 645 Plaintiff's Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Raul M. Arias-Marxuach on 2/15/2022. (mrr)
Case 3:17-cv-02197-RAM Document 728 Filed 02/15/22 Page 1 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
YEMAL
al.,
CALDERÓN
AMÉZQUITA,
et
Plaintiff
CIVIL NO. 17-2197 (RAM)
v.
Victor Rivera Cruz, et al.,
Defendant
OPINION AND ORDER
RAÚL M. ARIAS-MARXUACH, United States District Judge
I.
Pending
before
the
BACKGROUND
Court
is
Codefendant
Doctors’
Center
Bayamón, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Motion in Limine to Preclude Any
Evidence or Argument That Doctors’ is Directly Liable for the
Proportional Negligence of the Defendants Who Have Been Dismissed
from the Case (“Defendant’s Motion”) (Docket No. 644), Plaintiff
Dr. Yemal Calderón Amézquita’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion in Limine to
Include and Exclude Evidence at Trial” (“Plaintiff’s Motion”)
(Docket No. 645), and Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion in Support
of
Relief
Requested
(“Plaintiff’s
at
Dockets
Supplemental
Motion”)
No.
645,
(Docket
652,
No.
657
712).
&
670
Through
these motions and related briefing, Defendant seeks an order
barring
Plaintiff
from
presenting
evidence,
testimony
and/or
argument to the effect that Defendant is directly liable for the
Case 3:17-cv-02197-RAM Document 728 Filed 02/15/22 Page 2 of 7
CIVIL NO. 17-2197 (RAM)
2
actions or omissions of previous defendants who have been dismissed
from the present case. (Docket No. 644 ¶ 1). Plaintiff, on the
other hand, seeks an order barring Defendant from mentioning the
dismissals of these previous defendants. (Docket No. 645 at 1). 1
Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion then alerted this Court to recent
supplemental authority from the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico that
addressed liability apportionment when awarding damages. (Docket
No. 712).
For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s
Motion and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion.
II.
APPLICABLE LAW
This diversity suit is governed by the substantive law of
Puerto Rico. Pages-Ramirez v. Ramirez-Gonzalez, 605 F.3d 109, 113
(1st Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
Relevant here is the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico’s recent
body of caselaw interpreting and clarifying when a plaintiff must
bring claims against all alleged tortfeasors to ensure a complete
damages recovery. As it currently stands, this issue hinges on the
existence of an employer-employee-type relationship between the
co-tortfeasors. In Fraguada Bonilla v. Hospital Auxilio Mutuo, the
plaintiff filed a lawsuit against a hospital but did not sue the
doctor, an alleged joint tortfeasor, until six years later. See
1
The remainder of Plaintiff’s Motion is addressed in this Court’s other Opinion
and Order dated February 15, 2022. (Docket No. 727).
Case 3:17-cv-02197-RAM Document 728 Filed 02/15/22 Page 3 of 7
CIVIL NO. 17-2197 (RAM)
3
Fraguada Bonilla v. Hospital Auxilio Mutuo, 186 P.R. Dec. 365
(2012). The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff’s claim against
the doctor was untimely, as he was required to file suit against
the doctor within the one-year statute of limitations. Id. at 393.
Therefore,
Fraguada
teaches
that,
in
instances
of
imperfect
solidarity where there are multiple tortfeasors, to recover the
total amount of damages from each sued codefendant, a plaintiff
must separately toll the statute of limitations in relation to
each codefendant. Id.
A few years later, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court addressed
this issue in the context of third-party claims for damages. In
Maldonado Rivera v. Suarez, the Supreme Court held that if the
statute of limitations has run on a plaintiff’s claim for damages
against a non-defendant tortfeasor, other codefendants who were
timely sued cannot bring third-party claims against that nondefendant tortfeasor. See Maldonado Rivera v. Suarez, 195 P.R.
Dec. 182, 211 (2016). However, even if the plaintiff ultimately
prevails, because they are at fault for failing to file a timely
claim
against
the
non-defendant
tortfeasor,
the
portion
of
liability attributable to the non-defendant tortfeasor will be
deducted from the total compensation available to them. Id. at
212. In other words, in this scenario, the codefendants who were
properly sued are not liable for the damages they did not cause
Case 3:17-cv-02197-RAM Document 728 Filed 02/15/22 Page 4 of 7
CIVIL NO. 17-2197 (RAM)
simply
because
the
4
plaintiff
failed
to
timely
sue
their
co-
tortfeasors.
However,
the
Supreme
Court
of
Puerto
Rico
has
recently
clarified that different rules govern when the alleged tortfeasors
are
in
an
employer-employee
relationship,
i.e.,
perfect
solidarity. See Peréz-Hernández v. Lares Medical Center, Inc., 207
P.R. Dec. 965 (2021). In Peréz-Hernández, the Court held that, in
a case against joint tortfeasors who operate under an employeremployee relationship, a plaintiff may recover the entire damages
amount from any tortfeasor, regardless of whether he sued other
non-defendant
tortfeasors
within
the
applicable
statute
of
limitations. Id. In this scenario, the jury does not apportion
fault among the alleged tortfeasors. Instead, the defendant will
be responsible for the entire amount of the damages awarded to the
plaintiff and may subsequently seek contribution against the cotortfeasors in a separate and subsequent action. Id.
III.
DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff May Offer Testimony
Defendant’s Direct Liability
and
Evidence
Regarding
Having summarized the evolving legal landscape, we now turn
to Defendant’s Motion. Defendant posits that, pursuant to the
Supreme Court of Puerto Rico’s holdings in Fraguada and Maldonado,
it is not directly liable for the actions or omissions of exdefendants who were dismissed from this case because claims against
Case 3:17-cv-02197-RAM Document 728 Filed 02/15/22 Page 5 of 7
CIVIL NO. 17-2197 (RAM)
5
them were time-barred (the “Dismissed Parties”). 2 (Docket No. 644
at 6-7). Defendant thus argues that, should the jury award any
damages to Plaintiff, the jury must first apportion the damages
for each tortfeasor and deduct the amount attributable to the
Dismissed Parties from Defendant’s total liability. Id. To that
end, Defendant requests an order in limine barring Plaintiff from
presenting anything at trial that suggests Defendant may be held
directly
liable
for
the
alleged
negligence
of
the
Dismissed
Parties. Id. That request is DENIED.
As a threshold matter, while much ink was spilled briefing
this issue, Defendant has yet to identify any specific evidence it
seeks to exclude. Instead, Defendant has effectively requested
that this Court exclude theories of tort liability from trial,
which is not a proper request on a motion in limine. See TorresRivera v. Centro Medico Del Turabo Inc., 215 F. Supp. 3d 202, 208
(D.P.R. 2016).
Additionally, as noted above, the outcome of the arguments
underlying
Defendant’s
Motion
rest
on
the
precise
nature
of
Defendant’s relationship with the Dismissed Parties. Thus, to the
extent such evidence assists Plaintiff in proving the elements of
his claims, “such evidence is relevant and therefore admissible.”
Id. If Plaintiff has a good-faith basis to do so, he may argue
This is at least the third time that Defendant has made this argument in this
litigation. The other times took place at Docket Nos. 620, 632. Notably, this
last attempt was denied by the Court. (Docket No. 633).
2
Case 3:17-cv-02197-RAM Document 728 Filed 02/15/22 Page 6 of 7
CIVIL NO. 17-2197 (RAM)
6
that Defendant and the Dismissed Parties were in an employeeemployer relationship and that Defendant is thus liable for the
full amount of damages, if any. Should Plaintiff succeed on this
claim, Defendant would then be free to seek recourse from the
Dismissed Parties through a separate action for contribution. See
Peréz-Hernández, 2021 TSPR 123 (2021).
Likewise, Defendant may present evidence showing that it was
not
in
an
employer-employee
relationship
with
the
Dismissed
Parties and that if the jury finds them and Defendant liable, then
the
jury
must
apportion
damages
(if
any)
according
to
each
tortfeasor’s relative fault. Defendant would also be free to rebut
any affirmative evidence Plaintiff provides as to the nature of
the relationship between the alleged co-tortfeasors.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the nature of
Defendant’s relationship with the Dismissed Parties is unresolved,
relevant, and, at this juncture, a question for trial. Therefore,
Defendant’s Motion at Docket No. 644 is DENIED.
B. Defendant May Mention the Dismissed Parties
Relatedly, Plaintiff seeks an order in limine barring any
mention at trial of the Dismissed Parties. (Docket No. 645 at 5).
Given the above analysis, it is certainly relevant in this case
that other codefendants were previously dismissed, as the jury
must determine the Dismissed Parties’ relationship with Defendant.
Defendant
therefore
may
mention
the
Dismissed
Parties
while
Case 3:17-cv-02197-RAM Document 728 Filed 02/15/22 Page 7 of 7
CIVIL NO. 17-2197 (RAM)
stating
they
Defendant
is
are
no
barred
7
longer
from
parties
mentioning
to
this
why
any
action.
However,
codefendant
was
dismissed, as the underlying reason is not relevant to damages
apportionment or any of Defendant’s legal theories.
Thus, this portion of Plaintiff’s Motion at Docket No. 645 is
DENIED IN PART.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant’s Motion is
DENIED, and Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED IN PART. The Court also
DENIES Defendant’s request to file a dispositive motion at this
time. (Docket Nos. 716 at 4; 724 at 5).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 15th day of February 2022.
S/RAÚL M. ARIAS-MARXUACH_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?