Aponte-Bermudez v. Berrios et al, No. 3:2015cv01034 - Document 173 (D.P.R. 2018)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: denying Docket No. 163 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Camille L. Velez-Rive on February 1, 2018. (ASE) Modified on 2/2/2018 to edit Document Type (ram).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Aponte-Bermudez v. Berrios et al Doc. 173 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO YEITZA MARIE APONTE BERMUDEZ, Plaintiff, CIVIL NO. 15-10 34 (CVR) v. HECTOR H. BERRIOS, et. al., Defendants. OPIN ION AN D ORD ER Before the Court is Defendant Cooperativa de Seguros Múltiples and the Colón Defendants’ “Motion to Dism iss for Lack of Subject Matter J urisdiction.” (Docket No. 163). The present case stem s from an autom obile accident where co-Defendant Gabriel A. Medina-Ortíz allegedly caused the vehicle he was driving to im pact a parked m otor vehicle in front of “El Bullpen de Norberto Sports Bar”, owned by co-Defendant Eligio Colón (“Colón”). The force of the im pact caused the parked vehicle to crash into the bar and in jure several clients inside the bar, including Plaintiff Yeitza Marie AponteBerm údez (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff brought forth the present case for the injuries she sustained as a result of the accident. On J uly 29, 20 16, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Death of Party Defendant, Motion for Substitution of Party and for Leave to Am end Com plaint.” (Docket No. 57). In said m otion, she inform ed the Court that co-Defendant Colón had passed away and requested: 1) substitution of the decedent for his heirs; 2) at least sixty (60 ) days to ascertain the identity of said heirs and to am end the com plaint accordingly to include them form ally in the case and; 3) leave to substitute in the proposed am ended com plaint the unknown Dockets.Justia.com Yeitza Marie Aponte Berm údez v. Héctor H. Berríos, et al. Civil No. 15-10 34 (CVR) Opinion and Order Page 2 ______________________________ insurance com panies with their proper nam es. The Court granted the request and on August 24, 20 16, Plaintiff filed an Am ended Com plaint with the nam es of the heirs of Colón’ (hereinafter the “the Colón heirs”) an d added the proper n am es of the insurance com panies involved. (Docket No. 69). The Colón heirs and their insured, Cooperativa de Seguros Múltiples (collectively “Colón Defendants”) now bring forth the present m otion, alleging that two of the Colón heirs are residents of the state of Florida, as is Plaintiff. They aver the case m ust be dism issed because diversity jurisdiction is lacking. The Court ordered the parties to file briefs in support of their respective positions, and later, specifically ordered Plaintiff to discuss the applicability of Cruz Gascot v. HIMA San Pablo, 728 F.Supp.2d 14, 29 (D.P.R. 20 10 ) and its progen y to the present case. Universal Insurance and its insureds did not file an opposition, but requested joinder with the Colón Defendants’ m otion. The Court DENIES the Motion to Dism iss with the benefit of the parties’ additional subm issions, for the reasons explained below. LEGAL AN ALYSIS As the basis of the Colón Defendants’ petition to dism iss, the Colón Defendants allege that the Am ended Com plaint raises new causes of action against all the heirs. “Specifically, Plaintiff seeks in the Am en ded Com plaint to recover dam ages not only from the assets that the Estate of Eligio Colón but also from the private and own assets of each of of the heirs, including Eligio Rafael Colón Fernández an d Ricardo Colón Fernández”. Yeitza Marie Aponte Berm údez v. Héctor H. Berríos, et al. Civil No. 15-10 34 (CVR) Opinion and Order Page 3 ______________________________ (Docket No. 163, p. 2). Since the Am ended Com plaint includes this new cause of action and rem edies, the Colón Defendants proffer Plaintiff failed to use the substitution m ethod provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 25(a) and argues that the Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 rule for joinder applies instead. Under this analysis, the Colón Defendants m ove the Court to dism iss because the non-diverse Colón heirs are necessary and indispen sable parties under Puerto Rico law and com plete relief cannot be afforded without them . In the alternative, Defendants posit that, since Plaintiff does not com ply with the requirem ents of Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(3), she therefore “cannot claim the benefits of Rule 25 pertaining to m aintaining diversity jurisdiction.” (Docket No. 163). The Court finds both argum ents lacking in m erit. As is well known, federal courts are courts of lim ited jurisdiction. In the absence of jurisdiction, a court is powerless to act. Consistent with these principles, it is firm ly settled that challenges to federal subject m atter jurisdiction m ay be raised at any tim e, even for first tim e on appeal. Am . Fiber & Finishing, Inc. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 362 F.3d 136, 138 -39 (1st Cir. 20 0 4) (quoting Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 456, 124 S.Ct. 90 6, 915 (20 0 4); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determ ines at any tim e that it lacks subject-m atter jurisdiction, the court m ust dism iss the action”). Federal courts are expected to m onitor their jurisdictional boundaries vigilantly and to guard carefully against expansion by distended judicial interpretation. Am . Fire & Cas. Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 17-18, 71 S.Ct. 534 (1951). The crux of this m atter turns on whether the Colón heirs were added to the case Yeitza Marie Aponte Berm údez v. Héctor H. Berríos, et al. Civil No. 15-10 34 (CVR) Opinion and Order Page 4 ______________________________ pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 or Fed. R. Civ. P. 19. The Court finds they were properly substituted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25. The Court disagrees with Defendants’ assertion that the Am en ded Com plaint now seeks new rem edies against Defendants’ estate and personal assets and that this can be considered a n ew cause of action. Paragraph 36 of the Am ended Com plaint states: “[u]nder Puerto Rico law, the Colón heirs that accept their inheritance pure and sim ple, or without the benefit of inventory are responsible for all the obligations (“cargas”) of the inheritance of decedent Eligio Colón, including plaintiff’s claim s herein, not only with the assets of the inheritan ce, but also with their own. Article 957, Civil Code of Puerto Rico, 31 L.P.R.A. §278 5”. A reading of the relevant statute evidences that there is not a “new cause of action” as Defendants posit, but rather a direct quote from Puerto Rico Civil Code Article 957, which m andates that, when the estate’s assets are insufficient to cover its debts, the heirs respond for those outstanding estate obligations with their own m onies. See P.R. Law Ann. tit. 31, §2785. Thus, by autom atic operation of law, the Colón heirs would be responsible for any debt that Mr. Colón’s estate would not be sufficient to cover, including any judgm ent rendered in this case. These are not additional, new claim s, but rather, m andatory dispositions of the inheritance law under Puerto Rico’s Civil Code. 1 1 The Court notes that the con fusion about why an Am ended Com plaint was filed in the first place m ight have arisen because Plaintiff not only asked for leave to substitute the Colón heirs in lieu of the deceased, but also substitute the real nam es of the different insurance com panies. Yeitza Marie Aponte Berm údez v. Héctor H. Berríos, et al. Civil No. 15-10 34 (CVR) Opinion and Order Page 5 ______________________________ The fact that an Am ended Com plaint was filed does not autom atically m ean that no substitution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 occurred. On the contrary, as to the Colón heirs, besides describing who they are and the aforem entioned recitation of their obligations pursuant to Puerto Rico law, the Am ended Com plain t contains no other factual allegations or new causes of action applicable to them . Thus, having found that the substitution here was effected pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25, the case of Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426, 111 S. Ct. 8 58 (1991) controls, which holds that that “subsequent events” do not divest the district court of diversity jurisdiction. See also Am . Fiber & Finishing, Inc. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 362 F.3d 136, 140 (1st Cir. 20 0 4) (“we join several other courts of appeals that have read Freeport narrowly and restricted its precedential force to the precincts patrolled by Rule 25”); see also e.g,. Cobb v. Delta Exports, Inc., 18 6 F.3d 675, 680 (5th Cir. 1999) (lim iting Freeport to the context of adding parties under Rule 25); and Shaun P. Martin, Article, SUBSTITUTION, 73 Tenn. L. Rev. 545, 555 (20 0 7) (“The replacem ent of Original Party X by Successor Party Y upon the post-filing death, incom petence, irrelevance, or official dethronem ent of Party X does not, as a general m atter, substantially alter the core assum ptions upon which the assertion of federal subject m atter jurisdiction was initially based”). In view of the above, the Court finds it unnecessary to analyze the facts pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. because it finds that it has jurisdiction over this case and the substitution of the Colón heirs was properly done under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25. Yeitza Marie Aponte Berm údez v. Héctor H. Berríos, et al. Civil No. 15-10 34 (CVR) Opinion and Order Page 6 ______________________________ As a second reason for dism issal, the Colón Defendants posit that Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 m andates that, after a party’s death, a m otion to substitute, together with a notice of hearing, m ust be served on the parties as provided in Rule 5 and on nonparties (heirs) as provided in Rule 4. This, in order to provide the heirs “an opportunity to be herd (sic) an d present objections to the substitution.” (Docket No. 163, p. 13). The Court has found no case to stand for the proposition that the object of the notice and hearing is for the new parties to be able to present objections, particularly, as here, where the Colón Defendants are included in the case by autom atic operation of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1) is procedural. It m erely provides for “the m anner and the m eans by which a right to recover, as recognized by the State, is enforced by a court having venue, as well as power to decide the issues in the action, which is jurisdiction of the subject m atter”. Mississippi Pub. Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U.S. 438, 66 S. Ct. 242 (1946). Because this case is before a Court sitting in diversity jurisdiction, substantive state law applies. As previously stated, by virtue of becom ing heirs to the Colón estate and accepting the estate pure and sim ple and without the benefit of inventory, the m em bers of the estate autom atically stepped into the shoes of the decedent. For this reason, and once it is determ ined that the cause of action survives, there is no “chance to object”, as the Colón Defendants suggest, and the Court has no say on whether to deny or grant the substitution. Therefore, as applied to the case at bar, the hearin g is a non-issue and serves no useful purpose. Furtherm ore, Plaintiff here served the Am en ded Com plaint upon the Colón heirs Yeitza Marie Aponte Berm údez v. Héctor H. Berríos, et al. Civil No. 15-10 34 (CVR) Opinion and Order Page 7 ______________________________ pursuant to the rules who, in fact, specifically waived service of process and voluntarily subm itted to the Court’s jurisdiction when they filed their answer. See Docket Nos. 80 , 8 3, 83 and 110 . If any further notice was needed, service of the Am ended Com plaint pursuant to the law effectively m et that requirem ent. In light of this, the Court cannot find that the notice requirem ents were not m et here. Moreover, the Colón Defendants could have opposed the request for substitution at Docket No. 57, and never did. The Colón Defendants never requested a hearing either. As such, these m atters are deem ed waived. United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990 ) (“issues adverted to in a perfunctory m anner, unaccom pan ied by som e effort at developed argum entation, are deem ed waived”). Finally, the cases cited by the Colón Defendants are inapposite. The J asspon case dealt with service of process after the court had determ ined that the claim s therein had survived the death of the claim ant. There is no problem in the service of process in this case. Butler dealt with lack of service of the docum ents, and noncom pliance with service of process of those docum ents pursuant to the Federal Rules, and where there was opposition to the substitution by the Defendants. There has been no such opposition filed in this case. Fin ally, the Webster case does not help the Colón Defendants, insofar as it pertained to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 (c) a transfer of interest, and specifically held that no hearing was required in order to substitute the Trustee as plaintiff. For all the aforem entioned reasons, the Court finds it has jurisdiction to hear this case an d the substitution of the Colón heirs was properly done under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25. Yeitza Marie Aponte Berm údez v. Héctor H. Berríos, et al. Civil No. 15-10 34 (CVR) Opinion and Order Page 8 ______________________________ Defendants’ Motion to Dism iss (Docket No. 163) is DENIED. The J ury Trial will be set via separate order. IT IS SO ORDERED. In San J uan, Puerto Rico, on this 1st day of February, 20 18 . S/ CAMILLE L. VELEZ-RIVE CAMILLE L. VELEZ RIVE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE J UDGE
]]>
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.
