Gonzalez-Oyarzun v. Caribbean City Builders, Inc.

• Decision Date: 25 June 2014
• Docket Number: Civil No. 14–1101GAG.
• Citation: 27 F.Supp.3d 265
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
• Parties: Faustino GONZALEZ–OYARZUN, Plaintiff, v. CARIBBEAN CITY BUILDERS, INC., et al., Defendants.

27 F.Supp.3d 265

Faustino GONZALEZ–OYARZUN, Plaintiff

v.CARIBBEAN CITY BUILDERS, INC., et al., Defendants.

Civil No. 14–1101GAG.

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

Signed June 25, 2014.

Enrique J. Mendoza–Mendez, Mendoza Law Office, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff.

Carlos R. Paula, Labor Counsels, Jaime E. Pico–Rodriguez, San Juan, PR, Sergio Criado–Mangual, Correa Acevedo & Abesada Law Office, Guaynabo, PR, for Defendants.

Angel J. Valencia–Gatell, Department of Justice of Puerto Rico, Federal Litigation Division, Joseph G. Feldstein–Del Valle, Department of Justice, Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico, San Juan, PR, for Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Juan A. Marques–Diaz, Isabel Torres–Sastre, McConnell Valdes, LLC, San Juan, PR, for Office of the Courts Administration.

Opinion

GUSTAVO A. GELPÍ, District Judge.

“In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. ” U.S. Const. amend. VII.

This right applies within the states, commonwealths, and territories of the United States.

OPINION AND ORDER

Faustino Gonzalez–Oyarzun (“Plaintiff”) sued Caribbean City Buildings, Inc. (“Caribbean”), Me Salve, Inc. (“Me Salve”), GIB Development, LLC (“GIB”), John Doe, and Insurance Company X (collectively “Defendants”) for age discrimination and retaliation under both federal and Puerto Rico law. (See Docket No. 1.) After various motions and orders, the court allowed Plaintiff to amend the complaint to include a right to sue letter he received from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). (See Docket No. 32.) On March 26, 2014, Plaintiff timely submitted an amended complaint in which he requested a jury trial and which Defendants moved to dismiss for several reasons, including inclusion of a forum-selection clause in a termination agreement (“termination agreement” or “agreement”) directing the parties to the San Juan Court of First Instance. (See Docket Nos. 34 & 36.) Plaintiff opposed the motion and Defendants replied. (See Docket Nos. 38 & 41.)

On May 1, 2014, the court ordered both parties to provide supplemental briefing as to one of the issues Plaintiff raised in his opposition to the motion to dismiss: whether the Seventh Amendment right to a civil jury trial has been incorporated within the states, commonwealths, and territories of the United States. (Docket No. 44.) The court also ordered the parties to serve the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (“Commonwealth”) and Puerto Rico's Office of Courts Administration (“Office of Courts Administration”) with a copy of the complaint, the motion to dismiss, and the court's order so as to join them as necessary parties. (Id. ) Plaintiff informed the court on May 7, 2014, that he properly served the Commonwealth and Office of Courts Administration. (See Docket No. 47.) Plaintiff, Defendants, the Commonwealth, and the Office of Courts Administration timely complied with the court's order for supplemental briefing. (See Docket Nos. 65, 67, 78, & 79.)

For the following reasons, the court GRANTS the motion to dismiss at Docket No. 36, as the forum-selection clause is valid. In so holding, the court answers whether and finds in the affirmative that the Seventh Amendment has been incorporated within the states, commonwealths, and territories of the United States. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

I. Standard of Review

“The general rules of pleading require a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Gargano v. Liberty Intern. Underwriters, Inc., 572 F.3d 45, 48 (1st Cir.2009) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). “This short and plain statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’ ”

Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ).

Under Rule 12(b)(6), a defendant may move to dismiss an action against him for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. The court must decide whether the complaint alleges enough facts to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. In so doing, the court accepts as true all well-pleaded facts and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor. Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87, 90 (1st Cir.2008). However, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ ” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) ).

A plaintiff need not allege sufficient facts to meet the evidentiary prima facie standard. See generally Rodriguez–Reyes v. Molina–Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 49 (1st Cir.2013). Prima facie elements “are part of the background against which a plausibility determination should be made.”Id. at 54 (external citations omitted). “[T]he elements of a prima facie case may be used as a prism to shed light upon the plausibility of the claim.” Id. (emphasis added).

II. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff invokes federal question jurisdiction pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq., diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. (See Docket No. 34 at 1.) He lodges claims for violations of several Puerto Rico laws, including Law 100, 29 P.R. Laws Ann. tit. § 146 et seq.; Law 80, 29 P.R. Laws Ann. tit. § 185e, and; Law 115, 29 P.R. Laws Ann. tit. § 194. Plaintiff asserts he exhausted the necessary procedural and administrative prerequisites. (Id. at 2.) Elaborating, Plaintiff claims:

A charge of age discrimination was filed [with] the Puerto Rico Antidiscrimination Unit (“ADU”) and the [EEOC] on March 15, 2013. Said filing was done within the [statute of limitations].... The ADEA differs from Title VII in allowing parties to file suit without a right to sue letter from the EEOC, as long as the charging party waited 60 days after the filing of the charge with the EEOC. The required 60 day[ ] waiting period was satisfied in this case. The original charge was subsequently amended to raise a claim for retaliation under the ADEA and Puerto Rico law. The amended fil[ing includes] a retaliation claim [that] is like or reasonably related to the original charge and did not require exhaustion of administrative remedies. The 60 day [ ] waiting period as to this amend[ment] shall [expire] on March 29, 2014 ... [and a] right to sue letter was issued by the EEOC on March 19, 2014....

(Id. )

Plaintiff was born on December 19, 1946, making him 67 years old at the time he filed the amended complaint. (Id. at 3.) Defendants share common ownership and work in an integrated fashion, and they exercised sufficient control over the terms and conditions of Plaintiff's employment to constitute a joint and/or single employer. (Id. ) Plaintiff began working for them on February 5, 2007, as the administrator in charge of handling their real estate properties. He was terminated on September 25, 2012, at the age of 65. (Id. ) Defendants neglected to state a reason for terminating Plaintiff even though his job performance was excellent and he was never disciplined. (Docket No. 32 at 3.) To replace Plaintiff, Defendants hired Pilar González and Ana Pabón. (Id. at 4.) They were hired weeks before Plaintiff's termination and are in their late thirties or early forties. (Id. )

Plaintiff entered into a termination agreement with Caribbean when he was released, waiving certain potential causes of action. (Id. ) He claims the waiver is invalid for several reasons: (1) failure to comply with the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (“OWBPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 626(f) ; (2) failure to provide adequate consideration for the waivers and releases obtained; (3) improper interference with investigative duties and functions of federal and local administrative agencies dealing with discrimination in employment, and; (4) inclusion of waivers that never received prior necessary approval from regulatory overseers.

Plaintiff also asserts he suffered retaliation because Defendants filed a claim for breach of contract in Puerto Rico court, invoking the termination agreement, seeking to prevent him from pursuing administrative remedies. (Id. at 5.) Defendants filed the claim in the Court of First Instance, San Juan Division, pursuant to a forum-selection clause in the agreement that vests in that court “sole and exclusive jurisdiction and venue for any controversy arising in relation to this Agreement.” (Docket No. 16–1 at 10.)

III. Discussion

Defendants moved to dismiss on several grounds: (1) failure to exhaust administrative remedies; (2) Colorado River abstention; (3) waiver and release of causes of action under Puerto Rico law; (4) lack of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims; (5) failure to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, and; (6) forum non conveniens. Because the court bypasses the questions of jurisdiction due to a valid forum-selection clause and dismisses the case for forum non conveniens,¹ it does not reach any meaningful conclusion as to the first five contentions but...