Alonso v. Stonemor P.R., LLC

• Decision Date: 29 April 2021
• Docket Number: CIVIL NO.: 19-1052 (MEL)
• Parties: BÁRBARA PALOMINO ALONSO, Plaintiff, v. STONEMOR PUERTO RICO, LLC, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

BÁRBARA PALOMINO ALONSO, Plaintiff, v. STONEMOR PUERTO RICO, LLC, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL NO.: 19-1052 (MEL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

April 29, 2021

OPINION AND ORDER

On July 1, 2019, Ms. Bárbara Palomino Alonso ("Plaintiff") filed an amended complaint against StoneMor Puerto Rico, LLC, StoneMor Puerto Rico Cemetery and Funeral, Inc., StoneMor Puerto Rico Subsidiary, LLC, and StoneMor GP, LLC ("Defendants" or "StoneMor"). ECF No. 37. In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to a hostile work environment and constructively discharged based on her religious beliefs and national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and Title 29, Annotated Laws of Puerto Rico, Section 146 ("Law 100"). Id. at 9-10, 13. Plaintiff also alleges that she was retaliated against for filing charges of employment discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") in violation of Title VII. Id. at 10-12. Additionally, Plaintiff claims that she was constructively terminated without "just cause" in violation of Title 29, Annotated Laws of Puerto Rico, Section 185a ("Law 80"). Id. at 12.

The case record reflects substantial delays for reasons that are not attributable to the Defendants. On August 28, 2020, three days before the discovery deadline expired, Plaintiff's counsel José O. Vázquez García filed a motion requesting leave to withdraw as counsel of record due to Plaintiff's request that he resign from the case. ECF No. 97, at 6; ECF No. 105. Counsel Vázquez García's request was denied without prejudice. ECF No. 106. Plaintiff was granted two weeks to retain the services of new counsel and was put on notice "that the discovery phase of the case will not be reopened simply because there is a change in legal representation. The deadlines to file dispositive motions and to file responses in opposition to said motions remain as set." ECF Nos. 82, 106. On September 14, 2020, after the deadline to conclude discovery had passed, counsel Vivian Patricia Ramos Santiago filed a notice of appearance as counsel for Plaintiff. ECF No. 107. Hence, counsel Vázquez García's second request to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff was granted. ECF Nos. 108, 110.

On September 30, 2020, Defendants filed the motion for summary judgment that is pending before the court. ECF No. 114. On October 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a pro se motion informing that counsel Ramos Santiago had been hospitalized and requested "at least 45 days to answer any motions or orders." ECF No. 121. Plaintiff's request for a 45-day extension of time from October 16, 2020 to respond to the motion for summary judgment was granted. ECF No. 125. On December 1, 2020, Defendants filed a motion requesting that Plaintiff be ordered to show cause regarding her failure to respond to the pending motion for summary judgment "even after the lapse of the 45-day extension she requested or otherwise inform regarding the status of her legal representation." ECF No. 124, at 3. On December 2, 2020, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause as to why Defendants' motion for summary judgment should not be deemed unopposed. ECF No. 126.

On December 9, 2020, Plaintiff's counsel informed that she was admitted to the hospital on October 7, 2020 after being diagnosed with COVID-19 where she remained until October 20, 2020. ECF No. 127, at 1. Plaintiff's counsel explained that she was unable to return to work for approximately eight weeks. Id. Plaintiff requested a second extension of time until December 18,2020 to file a response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Id. at 2. Plaintiff's second request for an extension of time was granted. ECF No. 128.

On December 21, 2020, after the deadline to file a response to the motion for summary judgment expired, Defendants filed a motion requesting that their motion for summary judgment be deemed unopposed. ECF No. 129. On December 22, 2020, Plaintiff's counsel requested leave to withdraw as counsel of record "due to personal reasons related to the appearing counsel's health." ECF No. 130, at 1. Plaintiff's counsel's request to withdraw was denied. ECF No. 131. The court ordered Plaintiff's counsel to "file by December 29, 2020 a motion, under restricted access if she so wishes, providing a medical certification specifying the particular health condition that prevents her to work and for how long she will be unable to work." Id. Plaintiff's counsel was also ordered to "inform in her motion whether she has also requested leave to withdraw in all her cases and not only in this one due to health reasons." Id.¹ Plaintiff's counsel failed to comply with the court's order.

In light of Plaintiff's repeated failure to file a timely response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, Defendants' motion to deem its motion for summary judgment submitted without opposition (ECF No. 129) was granted. ECF No. 132. Thus, Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 114) is deemed unopposed. Id.

On February 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed a pro se motion requesting an update on the status of her case and a reasonable amount of time to find a new attorney. ECF No. 133. On February 9, 2021, the court informed that "[a]s of the date of this order, counsel Vivian Patricia Ramos-Santiago has not been granted leave to withdraw as counsel of record. See ECF No. 131. The status of the case is that the discovery phase has concluded and the pending motion for summaryjudgment has been deemed unopposed. See ECF Nos. 84, 132. Plaintiff is free to hire a new lawyer if she so wishes, but the discovery phase of the case will not be reopened." ECF No. 134.

On February 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed a second pro se motion requesting that she be provided with "at least 45 additional days to seek proper counsel in order to be able to comply with any orders from this Honorable Court." ECF No. 137. On February 24, 2021, the court informed that "[a]s previously indicated, plaintiff may retain the services of a lawyer if she so wishes. However, the court will not stay the proceedings in this case taking into account that plaintiff already had an opportunity to change her legal representation." ECF No. 138.

I. Standard of Review

The purpose of summary judgment "is to pierce the boilerplate of the pleadings and assay the parties' proof in order to determine whether trial is actually required." Wynne v. Tufts Univ. Sch. of Med., 976 F.2d 791, 794 (1st Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). Summary judgment is granted when the record shows that "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "A dispute is genuine if the evidence about the fact is such that a reasonable jury could resolve the point in the favor of the non-moving party. A fact is material if it has the potential of determining the outcome of the litigation." Farmers Ins. Exch. v. RNK, Inc., 632 F.3d 777, 782 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting Rodríguez-Rivera v. Federico Trilla Reg'l Hosp., 532 F.3d 28, 30 (1st Cir. 2008)).

The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the movant presents a properly focused motion "averring 'an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case[,]' [t]he burden then shifts to the nonmovant to establish the existence of at least one fact issue which is both 'genuine' and 'material.'" Griggs-Ryan v. Smith, 904 F.2d 112, 115 (1st Cir. 1990) (quoting Garside v. Osco Drug, Inc., 895 F.2d 46, 48 (1st Cir. 1990)).For issues where the nonmoving party bears the ultimate burden of proof, the party cannot merely "rely on an absence of competent evidence, but must affirmatively point to specific facts [in the record] that demonstrate the existence of an authentic dispute." McCarthy v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 56 F.3d 313, 315 (1st Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The party need not, however, "rely only on uncontradicted evidence . . . . So long as the [party]'s evidence is both cognizable and sufficiently strong to support a verdict in her favor, the factfinder must be allowed to determine which version of the facts is most compelling." Calero-Cerezo v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 355 F.3d 6, 19 (1st Cir. 2004) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted).

In assessing a motion for summary judgment, the court "must view the entire record in the light most hospitable to the party opposing summary judgment, indulging all reasonable inferences in that party's favor." Griggs-Ryan, 904 F.2d at 115. There is "no room for credibility determinations, no room for the measured weighing of conflicting evidence such as the trial process entails, [and] no room for the judge to superimpose his own ideas of probability and likelihood." Greenburg v. P. R. Mar. Shipping Auth., 835 F.2d 932, 936 (1st Cir. 1987). The court may, however, safely ignore "conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation." Medina-Muñoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 896 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1990) (citations omitted).

II. Uncontested Material Facts

A. General Information about Defendants

On December 21, 2019, StoneMor GP, LLC converted into StoneMor, Inc. ECF No. 122-1, at 1, ¶ 1; ECF No. 114-10, at 1, ¶ 2. StoneMor, Inc., headquartered in Trevose, Pennsylvania, is the second largest owner, through subsidiaries, of cemeteries in the United States. ECF No. 122-1, at 1, ¶ 2; ECF No. 114-10, at 1, ¶ 3. StoneMor, Inc. owns over 300 cemeteries and almost100 funeral homes throughout the continental United States and Puerto Rico. Id. StoneMor, Inc.'s cemetery products and services are sold on both a pre-need (before death) and at-need (at death)² basis and include burial lots, lawn and mausoleum crypts and niches, burial vaults, caskets, memorials, and services related to the installation of this merchandise. ECF No. 122-1, at 2,...