Barrosse et al v. D'Amico et al, No. 3:2010cv01902 - Document 52 (D.P.R. 2012)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 29 MOTION to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) as to MAPFRE PRAICO Insurance Company of Puerto Rico, Punta del Mar Village Homeowner Association Regimen I, filed by MAPFRE PRAICO Insurance Company of Puerto Rico, Punta del Mar Village Homeowner Association Regimen I. Signed by Judge Jose A Fuste on 2/14/2012.(mrj)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO EMILY BARROSSE, et al., 4 Plaintiffs, 5 v. 6 7 Civil No. 10-1902 (JAF) JENNIFER D AMICO, et al., Defendants. 8 9 OPINION AND ORDER 10 Plaintiffs, Emily Barrosse ( Ms. Barrosse ) and her son, Alexander Barrosse, bring this 11 action in diversity against Defendants, Jennifer D Amico ( D Amico ), Punta del Mar Village 12 Homeowner Association Regimen I ( Homeowner Association ), MAPRE/PRAICO of Puerto 13 Rico ( MAPFRE ), and other unnamed insurers. (Docket No. 1.) Plaintiffs, residents of 14 Maryland, allege negligence under 31 L.P.R.A. §§ 5141 5142 (2008) stemming from a fall that 15 Ms. Barrosse suffered while vacationing in Rincón, Puerto Rico, in March of 2010. (Docket 16 Nos. 1; 30.) Codefendants Homeowner Association and MAPFRE ( Movants ) move for 17 dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Docket No. 29), and Plaintiffs oppose 18 (Docket No. 30). 19 I. 20 Allegations 21 We derive the following allegations from the complaint. (Docket No. 1.) On March 6, 22 2010, Ms. Barrosse and her son, Alexander, arrived at the Luis Muñoz Marín International 23 Airport in San Juan, Puerto Rico, from their home state of Maryland. (Id. at 3.) Ms. Barrosse s Civil No. 10-1902 (JAF) -2- 1 bag did not arrive with the flight, and the airline promised to deliver the luggage the next day 2 to Rincón, where Plaintiffs had plans to stay. (Id.) The next morning, on March 7, a driver 3 carrying Ms. Barrosse s bag called her to deliver the luggage. (Id.) 4 Ms. Barrosse alleges that as she walked out the front door of the rental property where 5 she was staying, she tripped on a step or offset just in front of the door of the rental unit and 6 fell[,] causing injuries to her wrist and ankle. (Id.) According to the complaint, the terra cotta 7 tiles in front of the door were placed in such a manner that the step or offset was 8 indistinguishable. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that this indistinguishable step was a dangerous and 9 hazardous condition that was the sole and exclusive cause of Ms. Barrosse s injuries. (Id.) 10 Plaintiffs complaint states that D Amico is the owner of the rental property where 11 Ms. Barrosse was staying, and that the Homeowners Association owned, operated, managed 12 and/or controlled the facilities where the rental property was located. (Id. at 1 2.) MAPFRE 13 is the liability insurer of D Amico and the Homeowners Association. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiffs 14 further allege that D Amico and the Homeowners Association were both under a duty to 15 maintain the area where Mrs. Barrosse s accident occurred, and that both failed to notify the 16 guests or repair the dangerous condition. (Id.) 17 II. 18 Motion to Dismiss Under 12(b)(6) 19 A. Standard 20 A defendant may move to dismiss an action, based solely on the complaint, for the 21 plaintiff s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 22 In assessing such a motion, we accept[] all well-pleaded facts as true, and we draw all Civil No. 10-1902 (JAF) -3- 1 reasonable inferences in favor of the [plaintiff]. Wash. Legal Found. v. Mass. Bar Found., 993 2 F.2d 962, 971 (1st Cir. 1993). 3 [A]n adequate complaint must provide fair notice to the defendants and state a facially 4 plausible legal claim. Ocasio-Hernández v. Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011). 5 In considering a complaint s adequacy, we disregard statements in the complaint that merely 6 offer legal conclusions couched as fact or threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of 7 action. 8 [n]onconclusory factual allegations . . . even if seemingly incredible. Id. On the basis of 9 those properly pled facts, we assess the reasonableness of the inference of liability that the Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 10 plaintiff is asking the court to draw. Id. at 13. 11 B. We then take as true what remains, Analysis 12 Movants argue that the complaint should be dismissed as to them, since during the 13 discovery it was made clear that the plaintiff fell inside the property of D Amico, where 14 Movants claim they have no responsibility to maintain the property.1 (Docket No. 29 at 1 2.) 15 Movants contend that the Homeowners Association is responsible for maintaining only common 16 property of the development, not private grounds. (Id.) Movants provide no other evidence or 17 argument in support of their motion to dismiss. (Id.) 18 Plaintiffs respond by repeating their allegations in the complaint: That Ms. Barrosse fell 19 when she walked out the front door of the rental property. (Docket No. 30 at 4.) The area 20 where Ms. Barrosse fell, Plaintiffs argue, is a common area, not private property. (Id. at 4 5.) 1 Movants argue that Emily Barrosse s deposition made clear that she fell inside D Amico s property. (Id. at 1 2.) Civil No. 10-1902 (JAF) -4- 1 Plaintiffs further argue that discovery evidence shows that the area where Ms. Barrosse fell is 2 not considered a private area. (Id.) 3 In ruling on a motion to dismiss, [o]rdinarily, a court may not consider any documents 4 that are outside of the complaint, or not expressly incorporated therein, unless the motion is 5 converted into one for summary judgment. Altern. Energy, Inc. v. St. Paul Marine & Fire Ins. 6 Co., 267 F.3d 30, 33 (1st Cir. 2006) (citing Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1993)). 7 [T]he conversion of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a Rule 56 motion is a matter quintessentially 8 within the purview of the district court s sound discretion. Beddall v. State St. Bank and Trust 9 Co., 137 F.3d 12, 17 (1st Cir. 1998). In the exercise of our discretion, we decline to convert 10 Movants 12(b)(6) motion into a Rule 56 motion. See Rivera Concepción v. Puerto Rico, 786 11 F. Supp. 2d 442, 447 (D.P.R. 2010) (declining to convert motion to dismiss into summary 12 judgment motion). Neither party has advanced a compelling reason for us to consider any 13 evidence beyond the complaint. (Docket No. 29.) We, therefore, evaluate Movants 12(b)(6) 14 motion based solely on the complaint. 15 We find that Plaintiffs complaint states a facially plausible legal claim as to Movants. 16 Ocasio-Hernández, 640 F.3d at 12. Plaintiffs allege that Ms. Barrosse fell as she walked out 17 the door of her rental property; that a negligently-maintained step was the cause of her fall; and 18 that the Homeowners Association and its insurer were under a duty to maintain, correct or notify 19 Plaintiffs of this hazardous condition. (Docket No. 1 at 2 3.) We find that the inference of 20 liability that the plaintiff is asking the court to draw is sufficiently reasonable to survive a 21 motion to dismiss. Ocasio-Hernández, 640 F.3d at 12. Movants have provided us with no Civil No. 10-1902 (JAF) -5- 1 reason to doubt their own liability, beyond citing to evidence not properly considered on a Rule 2 12(b)(6) motion. 3 IV. 4 Conclusion 5 6 Given the foregoing, we hereby DENY Defendants Rule 12(b)(6) motion (Docket No. 29). 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 14th day of February, 2012. 9 10 11 s/José Antonio Fusté JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE 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.