Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 97-1660
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
____________________
Before
____________________
____________________
____________________
Inc. ( Professional )
from
ing
Professional Microfilm,
president, appeal
Inc. ( Canon )
(i) violated
nating its
discriminating against
husband, see
___
Professional
on
account
I
I
the Puerto
1802.
of
1, by
Santiago s
on Santiago and
We affirm
her
the dis-
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
__________
Santiago is
the president
of Professional
Microfilm,
for over
ers.
25 years.
Since 1984,
with Canon
as a
in 1989.
The following
clusive
distributorship
Canofile
the
agreement with
250, an innovative
next three
years Canon
designation
of
Canon
relating to
the
product.
Over
initiated
various adverse
Systronics,
Inc.
as
its
second
actions
with its
nonexclusive
Professional,
Santiago, and
her
husband filed
August 1993.
their
Count 1 alleged
discrimination.
1, which broadly
prohibits gender-based
nonex-
Act.
ment"
by Canon caused
guish,
and humiliation,"
contrary to
P.R.
anxiety, an-
Civil Code
Article
1802.
pleadings,
____________________
1The
(2)
through
its
order to "discredit"
representatives,
used
250 to
Professional until
preventing Professional
market;
(4)
information
Canofile
sales
provided
and
Professional, and
credit
earlier entry
Professional
product
250, thereby
efforts";
from an
November 1991,
with
enhancements
(5)
withheld
into the
incomplete
purchase
(6)
refused, in
with
the
plaintiff's (sic)
orders
placed
problems; and
retail
technical
in connection
"adversely affect[ing]
thereby
March
by
had serious
1993, to
provide
2Alternatively, Canon
unsuccessfully sought to
transfer the
case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of
New
York
pursuant
dealership agreements.
to the
forum-selection
See 28 U.S.C.
___
1404(a).
clause
in
its
12(b), (c).
the
A magistrate
judge recommended
dealership
barred
was to
be "nonexclusive;"
extrinsic evidence to
designation
could have
of Systronics as
effected no
the
parol evidence
rule
therefore, the
a second Canofile
250 distributor
wrongful "impairment"
under the
Dealer
Act.
Plaintiffs objected to
see P.R.
___
rule does
Local R. 510.2, on
not apply
to alleged Dealer
recommendation,
parol evidence
Act violations
and that
Canon
made
oral
agreement with
assurances that
its
Canofile
250 dealership
exclusive.
Plaintiffs
to consider
tion relating
decision
in
to the
Dealer Act
claim, citing
96
F.3d
nonexclusivity provision
Act claim),
10,
16
(1st
impaired
designation
Cir.
in dealership agreement
not
our intervening
Castillo, Inc.,
_______________
Dealer
1996)
v. Cesar
_____
(holding
dispositive of
gender-discrimination and
had
of
Systronics could
not
have been
an
adverse or
discriminatory
act.
Second,
assertions
that Canon
II,
engaged in a
conduct,
see supra
___ _____
note
1,
decision
to designate Systronics
1.
Finally,
pattern
were not
broad
of discriminatory
causally
as a second
the
linked to
its
In their motion
P.
59(e), plaintiffs
contended, inter
_____
alia,
____
that even
R. Civ.
if our
of discriminatory actions
engaged in by
after
sufficient to
claim.
serve as
independent bases
on the ground
plaintiffs
Act
preserved either
in
court
order dismissing
from its
denial of
II
II
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
__________
A.
A.
in timely fashion
claim
the
discriminatory
raise
contention
conduct
that
both
Canon engaged
before
and
in
a pattern
after the
of
Systronics
be excused be-
conduct in the
therefore
had an independent
duty to
scrutinize the
record de
__
even absent
We disagree.
is under no obligation
to discover
and recommendation
issued by
magistrate judge.3
Borden
______
v.
Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 836 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1987)
__________________________________
( Appellant
was entitled
to a
de novo
__ ____
review by
the district
however he was
never raised. )
not entitled to a
(citation omitted).
Magistrate's Report, at 10
R.
510.2]
failure to
de novo review of
__ ____
precludes
assert a
further
appellate
any right to
F.3d
143,
150-51
(1st
see
___
[P.R. Local
review."),
specific objection to
36
proper notice,
McGee,
_____
Given
an argument
a report
party s
and recom-
review by the
dis-
Cir.
1994);
28
U.S.C.
636(b)(1).
Finally, a Rule
____________________
3There is no
motion for
Instead, the
Canon
merely
implied
district court.
constitutional and
analysis,
background
in
describing
mental-anguish claims.
however,
an awareness
the
magistrate
that
judge
plaintiffs were
In
plaintiffs
neither
stated
claiming that
of conduct by
nor
such
eration, not
argue a
10,
16 (1st
affirm
Cir. 1992)
the summary
and
may
not be
(citation omitted).4
judgment ruling
dismissing
used to
978 F.2d
Accordingly, we
the Dealer
Act
claim.
B.
B.
dismissed their
as
merely
insist
gender-discrimination and
incidental
that they
to their Dealer
consistently
mental-anguish claims
Act claim.
maintained
Plaintiffs
throughout the
pro-
not merely
contributed
plaintiffs
to their
mental anguish.
See
___
supra note
_____
1.
As
the contractual
as a second distributor,
it could
not exercise that or any other right purely for gender-based rea-
sons
without
violating P.R.
Constitution
art.
II,
1,
and
The
objection by plaintiffs.
v. Commer_______
cial Builders, Inc., 936 F.2d 1462, 1473 (4th Cir. 1991) (conver___________________
sion
challenges waivable);
Hartford,
________
917 F.2d
____________________
Jones
_____
1528, 1533
n.4
v.
(11th
Cir. 1990)
(same);
79 F.3d 1415,
error.
1423-24 (5th
banc).
Auster Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Stream, 764 F.2d 381, 390 n.9 (5th Cir.
______________________
______
1985) (same).5
(referring to
summary
judgment ); Nieves
______
279 (1st
v. Holbrook,
________
tion
inferences to be
de novo,
__ ____
drawn favorably to
plain-
____________________
5The original
Canon motion
sought to dismiss
pertinent
that
contracts
requiring
exclusively
written documents
are not
Rule
to
12(b)
its
dealership
82 F.3d
considered
agreements,
1194, 1219-20
integral
to
an
motion for
see
___
(1st
Shaw
____
v.
Cir. 1996)
complaint
matters outside
conversion), and
alternative
the complaint
like
the pleadings
affidavit
change
relating
of
venue.
Although the
parties are
impending conversion, as
entitled to
reasonable
well as an opportunity
notice of
to
an
present all
Rule 56,
Fed. R. Civ.
(1st
Cir.
1996),
plaintiffs
the
invited
_______
record
the
conversion.
clearly
discloses
See
___
that
Chaparro-Febus
______________
983 F.2d
325, 332
Santiago s
sworn
_____
statement,
_________
violative of
Civil Code
(1st Cir.
be express).
which
In
(nonmovants
art. II,
See Fed. R.
___
and P.R.
Civ. P. 56(e);
David v.
_____
Cir. 1996)
objection to
(1997);
their
in a pattern of discriminatory
P.R. Constitution
Article 1802.
reiterated
Grove v.
_____
conversion), cert.
_____
denied, 118
______
Rodriguez
_________
(finding
anticipation
of
two
S. Ct.
157
more than
1997)
v.
attached
their
these
to assemble
months
their Rule
adequate to
possible conversion,
or
56 proffer.
F.3d 81,
prepare
move
had
See
___
83 (1st Cir.
materials
for Rule
in
56(f)
extension).
Cir. 1996).
duced
their claim
trial.
Summary judgment
as to
which
they would
have borne
the burden
at
Catrett, 477
_______
Although
relied in
error
Canon
acknowledges that
upon an
inadequate
the
ground in
district court
dismissing
affirm on any
(1st Cir.
gender
1993).
discrimination
plaintiffs
whether a
tern
Even
Rule 56
were cognizable
the
under Puerto
claim for
Rico law,6
Canon s so-called
pat-
of conduct.
Summary
elusive
judgment
elements as a
non-moving
party
may
be warranted
defendant s motive or
rests
merely
upon
even
as
to such
intent where
conclusory
the
allegations,
v. Shalala,
_______
ted); see
___
Pilgrim v.
_______
(citations omit-
F.3d 864,
____________________
operate
ex proprio
__ _______
that enunciated
vigore,
______
constitutional rights
permitting individuals
to sue
for
34 (1st Cir.
not prevail
1984).
A plaintiff [claiming
simply by asserting
self-serving conclusion
discriminatory animus.
that the
Coyne v.
_____
discrimination]
defendant was
may
on the
motivated by
F.2d
v. Arrillaga__________
The only
that
unidentified
smoking
Canon
gun
allegation in the
representatives
uttered
complaint is
unspecified
dignity as a woman
and as
a human being.
elaboration in
neither
the
identity and
a Rule
56 proffer, see
___
substance and
capacity
context
of the
parroted without
supra note
_____
of the
5, disclosed
epithets,7
person(s) employing
nor the
them.8
See
___
____________________
7See Speen v.
___ _____
Cir. 1996) (
F.3d
323,
329
(1st
Cir.
prove
636 (1st
Am.,
___
(same);
Alexis
______
v.
[v]iewed in context
to
1995) (noting
concern matters
the workplace
. .
statements by
discounted
1095 (6th
the
Cir. 1996)
discriminatory
non-decisionmakers. ).
10
remarks
nondecisionmakers, or
F.3d
See,
___
remark and
decisional process
( [T]he lower
remarks
court properly
.
by
Jones v.
_____
F.3d 1054, 1059 (7th Cir. 1994) ("'The object of [Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(e)] is not
or
tion omitted).
At summary
unattributed epithets
alone
were
derogatory
and
at 871 (noting
evidence
that plaintiff s
denigrating,
[subjective] perception
of discriminatory intent,
hence
let
not enough
is not
to with-
'subjective
characterizations
Douglass v.
________
Cir.
(en banc)
1996)
employee's
( It
is
(citation omitted);
. well
settled
rest on
see
___
also
____
1430 (5th
that
an
ment action as
more, is not
representation
that
Professional
____________________
remains its
_______ ___
sole
____
in Puerto Rico.
authorized
__________
Thus, before
9Nor did
supporting
the plaintiffs
their allegation,
based
on information
___________
56 evidence
and belief,
___ ______
heading a Canon
dealership in
by Canon could be
attributed to
11
the alleged
gender
only
pattern of conduct
why Canon
dealer in
retained Professional
micrographic
products, and
as its
one
sole
of two
Puerto Rico
Puerto
Rico
dealers in
with Santiago
in the
__ ___
first place.
_____ _____
the
facially
________
nondiscriminatory
_________________
In
why it
dealership agreement
on
conduct
engaged
in
by
Canon
claim
under
Plaintiffs
P.R.
Civil
Article
1802 fares
affected,
Code
no
better.
some appreciable
. were really
____________________
them
an
opportunity
motion
continuance nor
for
56(f).
none.
at *7
litigant who
of
the
asserting the
failure to
aid. ).
crucial
supporting
Dec. 22,
Civil
Procedure
to file
need for
timely
further
deficiencies in
a need
affidavit with
plaintiffs
plain
56 proffer
which Canon
for
the
court
have
held,
waiver, the
simply are
not
especially since
representatives uttered
12
presumably knew
As we
the
upon
precipitate a demand
discovery.
their Rule
56(f) of
specifically calls
by too
Second, notwithstanding
plaintiffs
the
affidavit required
1997)] ( Rule
attributable to
37, 50 (1st
feels prejudiced
judgment
abuse of
(1st Cir.
Federal Rules
before
summary
discovery
775553,
undertake
Cir. 1997).
under Rule
to
Lines, Inc.,
____________
708
F.
affliction,
Supp.
470,
472
(D.P.R.
turn
fered;
upon an evaluation
(2) its
Lopez-Nieves v.
duration;
and
(3)
Marrero-Vergel, 939
1989)
(citing
These showings
its
mental
F. Supp.
suf-
consequences.
124, 126
(D.P.R.
____________
______________
1996).11
tion, cf.
___
Cruz v. Molina,
____
______
(court sitting as
788 F.
nor
since
had he
consulted a
any emotional
primarily
from the
representatives,
to
as to the substance of
note 11.
plaintiffs presumably
alleged use of
and
(D.P.R. 1992)
plaintiff s uncorrobo-
physician); supra
_____
injury
mental suffering,
sex-based epithets
plaintiffs offered no
Moreover,
resulted
by Canon
competent evidence
have no
evidentiary basis
remarks were
type of
for determining
likely to have
whether the
alleged
husband the
____________________
these district
deciding,
that
court
the
cited
decisions, we
decisions
commonwealth standard.
13
simply assume,
describe
the
without
applicable
1802.
merely upon
conclusory allegations,
improbable inferences,
Affirmed.
Affirmed.
________
rest[]
and
14