Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Before
Torruella, Lynch, and Thompson,
Circuit Judges.
Eduardo Cobian-Roig,
Cobian & Bonilla, P.S.C.,
Jos L. Ubarri, with
Law Office were on brief,
THOMPSON,
Circuit
Judge.
Spending
time
astride
an
business.
Unfortunately,
ngela
Rivera-Carrasquillo
that certain parties may not be held liable for the negligence of
the company who rented the horse to Rivera and put on the tour.
After careful review of the at-times-confusing trial
record and counsels' appellate arguments, we are unable to discern
the district court's reasons for its rulings.
on
the
plaintiffs'
claims.
And
the
parties,
None of their
arguments will make sense -- and the reader won't know what's
important in our discussion of the facts underlying this case -unless we start with a general overview of Puerto Rico's statute
of limitations.
Puerto Rico's statute of limitations2 for tort actions
like this one is one year.
First, a plaintiff
may have "actual knowledge of both the injury and of the identity
of the person who caused it."
See
Id. at 27.
- 5 -
Id.
Under
Puerto Rico law, deemed knowledge "is essentially parlance for the
discovery rule, which stands for the proposition that '[t]he oneyear [statute of limitations] does not begin to run until the
plaintiff
possesses,
or
with
due
diligence
would
possess,
Id. (alterations in
the evidence in the record that a jury could properly find the
plaintiff had been diligent in investigating the cause of her
injury); Villarini-Garca, 8 F.3d at 86 ("[W]hether a plaintiff
has exercised reasonable diligence is usually a jury question."
(quoting Bohus v. Beloff, 950 F.2d 919, 925 (3d Cir. 1991))); see
also id. at 87 ("[E]ven where no raw facts are in dispute, the
issues of due diligence and adequate knowledge are still ones for
the
jury
so
long
as
the
outcome
is
within
the
range
where
Asociacin
But a
plaintiff who, like Rivera, sues more than one year after the date
of
injury
"bears
the
burden
of
proving
that
she
lacked
the
Alejandro-Ortiz,
756 F.3d at 27 (quoting Hodge v. Parke Davis & Co., 833 F.2d 6, 7
(1st Cir. 1987)).
- 7 -
Rather, a
(effective
Madrigal, Inc.6
June
15,
2007
through
June
13,
2012)
with
use Madrigal, Inc.'s premises to "keep its saddle horses for rent
by the general public."
renting
[Madrigal,
horses
Inc.]
has
must
no
clearly
and
relationship
precisely
with
or
state
that
obligation
to
- 9 -
Before
In doing so, he
- 10 -
from her horse after she proved unable to maintain control of the
animal.
This appeal, at least with respect to Pasin (and to a
lesser extent, Caldern), is not primarily about the jury's finding
of liability.8
A second
Criadero La
- 11 -
stables
(along
with
some
other
facilities)
in
order
to
owned its own horses, Pasin did not rent out any of the ones
boarded in Criadero La Gloria's 108 stables.
In the late summer or early fall of 2009, Caldern
figured out that Pasin could no longer afford to stay in business
because it was costing him more money to feed his horses than he
was bringing in. So, and with Berros's approval, Caldern offered
to sell his horse renting and touring business to Vlez.
Vlez
And
there's
yet
another
Assurance Company.
company
we
have
to
identify,
Integrand
Madrigal,
Inc.
paid
for
the
policy,
and
the
other
Thus,
- 13 -
lawyer,
Yesenia
Ramos
Talavera
("Attorney
Berros's
Ramos"),
Rivera
and
her
husband
Hernndez,
and
defendants
10
- 14 -
counsel for Berros and Madrigal, Inc., and Attorney Daz for the
plaintiffs.11
The
Report
described
the
discovery
still
to
be
interrogatories
remained
outstanding.
It
also
Ramos
served
her
clients'
answers
to
the
11
The written answer did not, however, specifically mention the name
of Caldern's business (Pasin), and it further stated that Berros
did not know Caldern's address.
The plaintiffs amended their state court complaint on
August 30, 2011 to add Madrigal, Inc.'s and Berros's liability
insurer, Integrand, as an additional defendant.13
The amended
- 16 -
Inc.
Caldern."14
That
was
Plaintiffs'
operated
counsel
before
did
not
um
"Centro Ecuestre
.
pose
any
Gerardo
follow-up
This statement,
La
Gloria
operated
the
boarding
business,
while
Yet, no
14
A.
Yes, yes.
Q.
They did
15
3.
Rico.16
The
federal
complaint
contained
the
same
by"
Berros
and
Casillas;
Madrigal,
Inc.;
Agro
The
plaintiffs amended their complaint as-of-right fewer than twentyone days later, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1) (describing when a
party may amend its pleading without leave of court), but still
did not assert claims against Caldern or Pasin.
16
The original defendants -- Berros and Madrigal, Inc. -do not contend that the statute of limitations bars the federal
complaint against them. This is because Puerto Rico law contains
a "restart rule" that gives a plaintiff one year from the date of
a dismissal without prejudice to re-file an action against any and
all defendants that had been timely joined. Rodrguez v. Suzuki
Motor Corp., 570 F.3d 402, 408 (1st Cir. 2009) ("The usual rule
under Puerto Rico law is that the filing of a judicial action tolls
that statute of limitations and, if the action is dismissed without
prejudice, the limitations period is reset and starts to run again
from that date."). As we noted earlier, the initial state court
complaint against Berros and Madrigal, Inc. was timely.
- 19 -
disclose
discoverable
the
name
"of
information
--
each
individual
along
with
the
likely
to
have
subjects
of
that
defendants'
Caldern
Lozano
Owner
included
and
the
following:
administrator
of
the
they would rely on the lease agreement between Madrigal, Inc. and
Pasin to support their defenses.
17
This time
- 20 -
The Complaint
For
with
all
these
other
defendants)
18
negligently
caused
on
should not go to a jury because the plaintiffs' claims are timebarred and that the limitations period cannot be tolled because
the plaintiffs failed to diligently work to learn the identity and
importance of Caldern and Pasin.
The district judge denied the motion in a brief written
order.
identity of the correct parties was not made apparent until October
2012."
19
- 22 -
remain
concerning
the
responsibility
and
role
of
each
Trial
Not
surprisingly,
Madrigal,
Inc.'s
and
Caldern's
In addition
He
testified that after he and his wife filed their lawsuit in state
court,
the
initial
defendants
(Berros
and
Madrigal,
Inc.)
- 23 -
July 4, 2009.
Hernndez's
"the
date
that
indicated
we
had
been
there"
[i.e.,
Madrigal, Inc.'s ranch] and the charge for the horse rental.
Per
Hernndez, the statement showed the "name" of the company that put
on the ride, but he didn't recall it any longer.20
The plaintiffs called Berros as part of their case in
chief.
Hacienda
operation[s]."
Madrigal
to
promote
their
horse
rental
20
He did admit,
have
knowledge
of
facts
relevant
to
the
complaint.
After sending
the jury out, he had the following exchange with the attorneys:
The Court: Counsel, don't go, because I want
to discuss something here.
It is pretty
obvious to me, it is pretty obvious to me that
the answers to those interrogatories fail to
disclose extremely important information that
was in the hands of defendants.
[Plaintiffs' Counsel]: I'm sorry, Your Honor?
The Court:
Those answers, from what I've
heard up to now . . . fail to disclose
- 25 -
The Court:
Because I'm not going to allow
that here. Is that clear?
[Defense Counsel]:
Well --
court
lawyer,
Attorney
Ramos,
would
testify
that
she
- 26 -
that he did not file suit against Caldern in state court because
he was not "certain" who was running the horse rental business in
July of 2009, and he did not want to assert claims against anyone
who might have no liability for Rivera's injuries.
Once the plaintiffs finished putting on their case in
chief, which included the above-described statute of limitations
evidence, it was the defendants' turn to present their defense.
First, Caldern took the stand and testified that he did run Pasin
in July of 2009, but that he sold the entire business to Vlez a
few
months
after
Rivera's
injury.
On
cross-examination,
he
- 27 -
He did this
client for whom she had done "a lot of contracts . . . and corporate
law," so she agreed to take on the matter even though she does not
handle
tort
cases.
Attorney
Ramos
told
the
jury
that
she
- 28 -
that relates them" -- meaning defendants other than Pasin and the
insurer -- "with the rental business."
conclude that there was no legal basis to hold any defendant apart
from Pasin liable for Rivera's injuries.
The district judge did not ask the plaintiffs what they
thought about the defense motion.
was, "I would say that at least the entities that appear in the
release are technically speaking involved one way or the other."
The Release, recall, listed "Hacienda Madrigal, Centro Ecuestre
Madrigal, Inc., Pasin Ecuestre, Inc. and its officers, directors,
managers,
agents
and
representatives
in
their
individual
and
whether
you
have
one
or
ten
or
[twenty]
or
three
Thus,
"if the jury were to find in favor of plaintiff[s] against any one
of them, any one of them, the deep pocket is the insurance company
. . . [n]o matter how you look at it."
- 29 -
he
would
let
the
other
defendants
--
with
the
exception
of
Integrand -- out.
Defense counsel next focused in on Pasin and said the
claims against it should be dismissed because "[t]he case was not
brought
in
one
year."
This
motion
brought
the
statute
of
that, and I told you the reasons," was the judge's immediate
response.
The judge went on to state that, "without entering into
credibility issues" regarding Attorneys Daz and Ramos, he would
instead rely on the (Puerto Rico Superior Court Rule 37.1) Report
signed by "[b]oth lawyers" to conclude that the defendants had not
produced Pasin's contract at the very beginning of the lawsuit.
The judge took the Report's specific wording that the lease would
be produced by a specific date as an indication that it had not
already been turned over to the plaintiffs.
He further expressed
his "view . . . that if Pasin Ecuestre was not included from the
beginning, it wasn't because of negligence or because of anything
21
of the sort.
judge
concluded
that
"[t]here
is
no
question"
This is finished.
is it."
After a recess, the judge returned to the defense's first
motion for judgment as a matter of law -- the one seeking to
dismiss everyone but Pasin -- and asked "[a]re we in agreement
that we should give the jury a streamlined case regarding parties?"
Defense counsel responded, "Defendants agree, Your Honor,"22 and
the plaintiffs expressed their agreement as well.
The court
Berros,
Casillas
and
the
conjugal
partnership
with
22
- 31 -
Estribo.23
form were the parties named in the Release Rivera had signed -Madrigal, Inc., Pasin, and Caldern.
The verdict form the court chose to submit to the jury24
effectively treated the three remaining defendants as one entity,
as it did not differentiate between theories of liability against
each.
"that the owner or possessor of the horse is liable," but the jury
was not asked to determine which of the three defendants qualified
as the "owner or possessor."
all three together, the verdict form also asked whether force
majeure "absolve[d] the Defendants of liability."25
23
So you
In response to defense
"over."
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, and the
district court entered judgment against Madrigal, Inc., Pasin,
and Caldern.
the defendants argued that the claims against Pasin are barred by
the statute of limitations.
26
- 33 -
judgment
explanation.
as
matter
of
law
in
docket
order
without
1.
27
29
And,
regrettably, the record does not supply a ready answer: each side's
characterization of the judge's actions finds at least some support
there.
We start with the plaintiffs' suggestion that the judge
struck the defense as a sanction.
the district judge's review of the papers led him to conclude that
the defense's success (or lack thereof) was dependent upon the
jury's
resolution
of
contested
facts.
This
is
an
obvious
brief and the court of appeals is left with but one side of a twosided story").
The defendants' briefing does not offend this principle. As
we discuss in detail herein, the record does not make clear whether
the district judge imposed a sanction or made a legal ruling when
he kept the statute of limitations defense from going to the jury.
The plaintiffs, in their appellate brief, are the ones who framed
the court's decision as that of a sanction order. The defendants
appropriately used their reply brief to challenge this assertion.
See Holmes v. Spencer, 685 F.3d 51, 66 (1st Cir. 2012) (recognizing
that an appellant's reply brief may be "the earliest point when it
[is] logical to" address an argument raised by an appellee in its
brief). Accordingly, we decline to make any finding of waiver.
- 36 -
calling their own witnesses), the district judge sent the jury to
lunch and instructed the parties to remain in the courtroom.
proceeded
to
characterize
the
defendants
as
having
He
"mess[ed]
would "pay the consequence" of their actions and that he was "not
going to allow" them to present a statute of limitations defense.
He also made it abundantly clear that he thought the defendants
were required to specifically identify Pasin in response to the
interrogatories served on them in the state court case, and stated
it was "pretty obvious" to him that the defendants' answers were
inadequate.
We are well-aware of the dangers of trying to glean tone
of voice and demeanor from a cold transcript.
Nevertheless, the
- 37 -
opinion
at
trial
Madrigal,
Inc.'s
and
Berros's
violated
misconduct.
discovery
obligation
or
engaged
in
or after trial.
the
interrogatories.
defendants
attached
to
their
answers
to
- 38 -
penalized
of
discovery.
because
the
"tropical
nature"
of
state
court
confusion
and
his
generalized
critique
of
discovery
- 39 -
of
we
have
the
observed
trial
court's
on
several
reasoning
occasions,
will
often
'some
prove
party's
divergent
view
of
what
went
on
at
trial,
an
This
905 F.2d 545, 549 (1st Cir. 1990) (holding that a district court
is required to articulate why it is imposing a sanction "when the
reason for the decision is not obvious or apparent from the
record"); see also Navarro-Ayala v. Nunez, 968 F.2d 1421, 1427 n.5
- 40 -
Thus, "we
30
2.
See Burgos-
- 42 -
the
community
business.
to
attract
customers
for
its
horse
rental
288, 293 (1st Cir. 1999) ("Under Puerto Rico law, an apparent
principal may be held liable for the acts of its apparent agent
where the apparent principal's actions 'led the plaintiffs to
reasonably
believe
[in
its]
representation'
of
authority
and
including
appearances.'"
its
(alteration
'silence,
in
evasive
original)
language
(quoting
and
Berros
v.
In addition,
denying
summary
judgment,
the
district
judge
And
- 43 -
made without asking the plaintiffs for their feedback, was to say
that any entity listed on the Release (meaning Madrigal, Inc.) was
"technically speaking involved" and would stay in the case.
He
- 44 -
liable, this alone does not mean that all defendants are liable.
The defendants also proposed giving the jury a separate verdict
form for each defendant in the case.
Madrigal, Inc. would have told the jury that it was not liable
unless the jury found that Madrigal, Inc. owned or operated the
horse rental business on July 4, 2009.
The judge did not oblige defense counsel's request to
separate out the defendants or instruct the jury on different
theories of liability.
the
defendants'
renewed
motion
for
to
show
that
Madrigal,
Inc.
was
responsible
for
the
- 45 -
Because multiple
legal theories had been advanced and were before the court, the
district court's conclusions of law "are not discernible" from the
docket order.
Francis, 81 F.3d at 7.
It is akin to a "margin
Id.
Moreover, though these arguments had been before the
- 46 -
trial.31
denied.
The
parties
have
not
provided
us
with
31
and
this
matter
is
remanded
for
further
proceedings
with
respect
to
Caldern's
and
Madrigal,
Inc.'s
- 48 -