Santiago-Rodriguez et al v. Valentin-Ruiz et al, No. 3:2007cv01988 - Document 74 (D.P.R. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 57 MOTION to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction as to Misael Santiago-Rodriguez filed by Benjamin Valentin-Ruiz, HL Suarez Transport, Universal Insurance Company. Jury Trial set for 11/30/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 7 before Chief Judge Jose A Fuste. Signed by Chief Judge Jose A Fuste on 11/10/09.(mrj)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO MISAEL SANTIAGO-RODRà GUEZ, et al., Civil No. 07-1988 (JAF) Plaintiffs, v. BENJAMà N VALENTà N-RUIZ, et al., Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER 12 13 Plaintiffs, Misael Santiago-Rodríguez, Irving Antonio Casiano- 14 Mangual, Bernie Rafael Casiano-Santiago, Michael Antonio Casiano- 15 Mangual, and Sharon Casiano-Mangual, bring this action in diversity 16 against Defendants, Benjamín Valentín-Ruiz, his spouse, and their 17 conjugal partnership; H.L. Suárez Transport; Universal Insurance 18 Company; and other unknown defendants. 19 allege negligence under 31 L.P.R.A. § 5141 (1990) stemming from an 20 automobile collision in Ponce, Puerto Rico, on November 13, 2006. 21 (Id.) 22 Procedure 12(b)(1), alleging that Santiago-Rodríguez is a citizen of 23 Puerto Rico and that we, therefore, lack diversity jurisdiction. 24 (Docket No. 57.) Plaintiffs oppose. (Docket No. 43.) Plaintiffs Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil (Docket No. 62.) Civil No. 07-1988 (JAF) -2- 1 I. 2 Factual and Procedural Synopsis 3 We derive the following factual summary from Plaintiffs amended 4 complaint, 5 Santiago-Rodríguez deposition and unsworn declaration under penalty 6 of 7 Plaintiffs. 8 the perjury, evidentiary and hearing additional held documentary on September evidence 2, 2009, submitted by (Docket Nos. 41; 66; 63; 64.) Santiago-Rodríguez moved from Puerto Rico to Philadelphia, 9 Pennsylvania in 1972. He held various jobs there through 2006, 10 working most recently as a home remodeler. Santiago-Rodríguez married 11 and raised two children in Philadelphia; his wife and both children 12 currently reside there. He filed Federal and Pennsylvania income 13 taxes claiming Pennsylvania as his state of residence, filing his 14 last return in 1993. 15 bought a home in the Pastillo ward of Juana Díaz, Puerto Rico. 16 Santiago-Rodríguez used the Juana Díaz home on occasional visits to 17 see relatives, averaging once or twice a year. 18 driver s license and kept a car at his Juana Díaz property. Between eighteen and twenty years ago, he He held a Puerto Rico 19 On November 13, 2006, Santiago-Rodríguez was in the midst of one 20 of his visits to Juana Díaz when he agreed to drive a friend, Ramón 21 Casiano-Mateo, 22 driving on Road No. One in Ponce, Puerto Rico, when a truck driven by 23 Defendant Valentín-Ruiz crashed into him. Santiago-Rodríguez spent 24 nine days in the hospital, receiving treatment for multiple traumas to a medical appointment. Santiago-Rodríguez was Civil No. 07-1988 (JAF) -3- 1 to the neck, chest, abdomen, and legs. He was discharged in a 2 wheelchair, which he used for a month, and proceeded from use of the 3 wheelchair to a walker, crutches, and eventually a cane. 4 rehabilitation process lasted several months. Santiago-Rodríguez has 5 not been able to work since the accident and has been supported 6 entirely by his children. He was uninsured at the time of the 7 accident, and his medical treatments in Puerto Rico were paid by the 8 Automobile Accident Compensation Administration (AACA). 9 This Santiago-Rodríguez first returned to Philadelphia in either 10 January or February 2007. 11 weeks before traveling again to Puerto Rico for both legal and 12 medical reasons. 13 Valentín-Ruiz for his role in the car accident and had subpoenaed 14 Santiago-Rodríguez as a witness at trial. 15 required to meet with the prosecutor s office at various points and 16 to appear in court once every two months over a one-year period. 17 addition, he needed to travel to Puerto Rico for further medical 18 appointments and treatments that would be covered by AACA.1 Santiago- 19 Rodríguez 20 Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico for these appointments. 21 chose to stay in Puerto Rico. 22 before returning to Philadelphia in the fall of 2007. 1 states He stayed in Pennsylvania for about six Puerto Rico had brought criminal charges against that he could not Santiago-Rodríguez was afford to travel In between Instead, he He remained there for about six months The AACA does not cover the costs of medical care received outside of Puerto Rico. See 9 L.P.R.A. § 2055(5) (2006). Civil No. 07-1988 (JAF) 1 -4- On October 16, 2007, Santiago-Rodríguez registered to vote in 2 Philadelphia. At that time, he also had at least one current 3 Philadelphia utility bill in his name.2 4 was filed on October 17, 2007. The complaint in this case (Docket No. 1.) 5 In the two years since the Plaintiffs filed this complaint, 6 Santiago-Rodríguez has spent the majority of his time in Puerto Rico. 7 He registered to vote in Puerto Rico, voting in the 2008 elections. 8 He 9 evidence was submitted as to memberships in churches, clubs, or 10 has neither Puerto Rico nor Pennsylvania bank accounts. No social organizations. 11 Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on June 24, 12 2009, arguing that Santiago-Rodríguez was a citizen of Puerto Rico 13 and that Plaintiffs failed to meet the diversity requirements of 28 14 U.S.C. § 1332. (Docket No. 57.) 15 2009. No. 16 September 17 Defendants motion to dismiss, pending the outcome of settlement 18 negotiations. (Docket No. 68.) Because settlement negotiations seem 19 to have stalled, we proceed to dispose of Defendants motion. (Docket 2 2, 2009. 62.) An (Docket Plaintiffs responded on August 17, evidentiary NO. 66.) We hearing reserved was held on judgment on Plaintiffs submitted both an electric and a water bill into evidence. (Docket Nos. 63; 63-1.) The water bill (Docket No. 63-1), however, was merely a notice that service had been shut off at some point in the past and that a balance was still due. Civil No. 07-1988 (JAF) -5- 1 II. 2 Dismissal Under Rule 12(b)(1) 3 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a defendant may 4 argue lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and move for dismissal by 5 controverting the jurisdictional facts alleged by the plaintiff. See 6 Torres-Negrón v. J & N Records, LLC, 504 F.3d 151, 162-63 (1st Cir. 7 2007). 8 whether the factual allegations challenged are distinct from the 9 case s merits. To resolve such a motion, the court must first determine Valentín v. Hosp. Bella Vista, 254 F.3d 358, 363 (1st 10 Cir. 2001). If the challenges to jurisdiction are entwined with the 11 merits of the case, then the court should employ the summary judgment 12 standard to resolve the jurisdictional dispute. 13 F.3d at 163. 14 entwined with the case s merits, the court enjoys broader fact- 15 finding powers than in standard motions to dismiss. See Valentín, 254 16 F.3d at 363 ( In conducting this inquiry, the court enjoys broad 17 authority to order discovery, consider extrinsic evidence, and hold 18 evidentiary hearings in order to determine its own jurisdiction. ) 19 Consequently, the jurisdictional facts that a plaintiff has pleaded 20 will not be given the same presumption of truth as those facts going 21 to the merits of its claim. 22 bears the burden of proving its existence by a preponderance of the 23 evidence. 24 1992). Torres-Negrón, 504 If, however, the facts relevant to jurisdiction are not Id. The party asserting jurisdiction See Bank One, Tex., N.A. v. Montle, 964 F.2d 48 (1st Cir. Civil No. 07-1988 (JAF) -6- 1 III. 2 Analysis 3 Defendants argue that Santiago-Rodríguez was domiciled in Puerto 4 Rico at the filing of the complaint and, consequently, that we lack 5 jurisdiction. (Docket No. 57.) Federal courts have jurisdiction over 6 claims brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 only where the controversy 7 arises between citizens of different states. Parties are citizens of 8 the state where they are domiciled. See Lundquist v. Precision Valley 9 Aviation, Inc., 946 F.2d 8, 10 (1st Cir. 1991). Domicile, in turn, 10 is the place where [a party] has his true, fixed home and principal 11 establishment, and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the 12 intention of returning. Padilla-Mangual v. Pavía Hosp., 516 F.3d 13 29, (citation 14 omitted). 15 a state and the intent to remain there indefinitely. Valentín, 254 16 F.3d at 366. 17 31 (1st Cir. 2008) and internal quotation marks Thus, a change of domicile requires physical presence in Parties enjoy a rebuttable presumption of continuing domicile. 18 Bank One, 964 F.2d at 50. 19 its burden of producing evidence to rebut continuing domicile, the 20 nonmovant must then prove its domicile by a preponderance of the 21 evidence. 22 is filed; later changes in domicile will not defeat diversity. 23 Events subsequent to the filing of a suit may, however, be taken into 24 account to the extent that they demonstrate the sincerity of a Id. Once a party challenging domicile has met A party s domicile is determined at the time a case Id. Civil No. 07-1988 (JAF) -7- 1 party s intention to remain. 2 García Pérez v. Santaella, 364 F.3d 348, 351 (1st Cir. 2004). 3 To determine a party s intent to remain in a state, courts 4 evaluate a variety of factors linking the party to the state, 5 including current residence; employment; voting registration;3 taxes 6 paid; real and personal property; bank accounts; and membership in 7 unions, clubs, or churches. 8 these factors are dispositive. 9 beyond merely tallying a party s contacts with a state; it must also 10 take into consideration the substantive nature of these contacts. 11 Id. 12 García Pérez, 364 F.3d at 351. Id. None of The court s analysis must go An evidentiary hearing may be necessary to determine a party s 13 intent 14 opposition s written submissions have not shown, within a reasonable 15 certainty, that declaration was false. 16 such cases, where the question is one of the declarant s credibility, 17 the court cannot rest its decision simply on the paper record, but 18 must hold a hearing in order to adequately assess credibility. 19 (quoting Prakash v. Am. Univ., 727 F.2d 1174, 1180 (D.C. Cir. 1984)); 20 accord Padilla-Mangual, 516 F.3d at 34. 3 where he has expressly declared his intent and Bank One, 964 F.2d at 52. the In Id. While some jurisdictions afford a presumption of domicile to the state where a party is registered to vote, the First Circuit considers voter registration to be only a weighty factor in the analysis. Bank One, 964 F.2d at 50. Civil No. 07-1988 (JAF) 1 -8- In the present case, the Defendants have challenged Santiago- 2 Rodríguez presumption of 3 Defendants argue that Santiago-Rodríguez presence in Puerto Rico for 4 most of the year preceding this case s filing, his Puerto Rico 5 driver s license, and his voting in Puerto Rico s 2008 elections are 6 all evidence of his intent to remain indefinitely in Puerto Rico. 7 (Docket No. 57.) Santiago-Rodríguez must respond by proving his 8 domicile by a preponderance of the evidence. Santiago-Rodríguez 9 relies primarily on his unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury 10 (Docket No. 64-2); his deposition testimony (Docket Nos. 64-3; 64-4); 11 his Pennsylvania voter registration (Docket No. 63-3); and his 12 Philadelphia utility bills (Docket Nos. 63; 63-2). 13 each party s submissions, we could not conclude that Defendants had 14 proven 15 Therefore, in accordance with Bank One, we ordered an evidentiary 16 hearing to gauge Santiago-Rodríguez credibility. Santiago-Rodríguez continuing declaration Pennsylvania of domicile. After reviewing intent to be false. (Docket No. 66.) 17 Having considered all the foregoing, and having assessed the 18 declarant s credibility, we find that Santiago-Rodríguez did not 19 intend, at the time of filing, to make Puerto Rico his permanent 20 home. 21 presence in Puerto Rico to testify in a criminal prosecution and 22 receive medical treatment does not, by itself, prove an intent to 23 remain there indefinitely. 24 medical necessities that hampered Santiago-Rodríguez return home to Santiago-Rodríguez spent most of 2007 in Puerto Rico, but his Rather, these were legal obligations and Civil No. 07-1988 (JAF) -9- 1 Pennsylvania. 2 in Pennsylvania with his family, paid Pennsylvania utility bills in 3 his name, and had registered to vote there. Santiago-Rodríguez 4 continued presence in Puerto Rico subsequent to the complaint s 5 filing may, indeed, have changed his domicile. But any doubts that a 6 subsequent change in domicile might cast on his intent, in October 7 2007, to return to Pennsylvania are outweighed by the substantive 8 nature of his ties to Philadelphia. 9 of the complaint s filing, Santiago-Rodríguez remained a citizen of 10 11 12 At the time the suit was filed, he resided at his home Thus, we find that, at the time Pennsylvania. Accordingly, we hereby DENY Defendants motion to dismiss. Trial shall be held on November 30, 2009, at 9:00 A.M. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 10th day of November, 2009. 15 16 17 s/José Antonio Fusté JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE Chief U.S. District Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.