Jesus v. Andres Reyes Burgos, Inc.

• Decision Date: 22 February 2022
• Docket Number: 3:17-cv-02349-JAW
• Parties: CARLOS ORTIZ DE JESUS and NOEMI FIGUEROA SULIVERES, on their own behalf and in representation of her minor daughter NOF; THE ESTATE OF KOF, constituted by her parents Carlos Ortiz De Jesús and Noemi Figueroa Suliveres Plaintiffs, v. ANDRES REYES BURGOS, INC., and its insurance company MAPFRE PRAICO INSURANCE; RAFAEL PÉREZ ESTRELLA; PUERTO RICO HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; DEL VALLE GROUP Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

1

CARLOS ORTIZ DE JESUS and NOEMI FIGUEROA SULIVERES, on their own behalf and in representation of her minor daughter NOF; THE ESTATE OF KOF, constituted by her parents Carlos Ortiz De Jesús and Noemi Figueroa Suliveres Plaintiffs, v. ANDRES REYES BURGOS, INC., and its insurance company MAPFRE PRAICO INSURANCE; RAFAEL PÉREZ ESTRELLA; PUERTO RICO HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; DEL VALLE GROUP Defendants.

No. 3:17-cv-02349-JAW

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico

February 22, 2022

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The remaining defendant in a negligence suit brings a motion for summary judgment arguing that all claims against it are precluded by a settlement agreement entered into by the plaintiffs and another co-defendant. The Court denies the defendant's motion for summary judgment because there are factual disputes as to the relationship between the settling and non-settling co-defendants and the remaining defendant's liability separate from the liability of its settling co-defendant.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 7, 2017, Carlos Ortiz de Jesús and Noemi Figueroa Suliveres (Plaintiffs) acting on their own behalf as representatives of their surviving minor daughter, N.O.F and as representatives of the Estate of K.O.F., their late minor daughter, filed a complaint in this Court against Andrés Reyes Burgos, Inc., its insurance company, Mapfre Praico Insurance Co., and Rafael Pérez Estrella. Compl. (ECF No. 1). On February 9, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, impleading the Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority (PRHTA) and Del Valle Group (Del Valle) as Defendants. Am. Compl. (ECF No. 17). On May 21, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint to make a technical change in the parties; the Second Amended Complaint is the operative complaint. Second Am. Compl. (ECF No. 46).

On March 10, 2020, the Plaintiffs, Andrés Reyes Burgos, Inc., Mapfre Praico Insurance, and Rafael Pérez Estrella filed a joint motion for voluntary dismissal, notifying the Court that they had reached a confidential settlement agreement. Joint Mot. for Partial Voluntary Dismissal (ECF No. 73). On April 23, 2020, the Plaintiffs moved for voluntary dismissal of the claims against Andrés Reyes Burgos, Inc., Mapfre Praico Insurance, and Rafael Pérez Estrella, which the Court granted that same day. Mot. Requesting the Ct. to Grant Joint Mot. for Partial Voluntary Dismissal (Docket #73) (ECF No. 80); Order on Mot. for Partial Voluntary Dismissal (ECF No. 81). PRHTA and Del Valle were not part of the settlement agreement.

Approximately one year later, on February 19, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a joint motion for partial voluntary dismissal as to Del Valle, stating that they had reached a confidential settlement agreement. Joint Mot. for Partial Voluntary Dismissal (ECF No. 142). The Court granted the motion the same day and on March 23, 2021, dismissed with prejudice the Complaint against Del Valle. Order on Joint Mot. for Partial Voluntary Dismissal (ECF No. 143); Order Granting Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 145).

On May 14, 2021, PRHTA filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the settlement agreement between the Plaintiffs and Del Valle precluded Plaintiffs' recovery against PRHTA. Defs. PRHTA's Mot. for Dismissal (ECF No. 149) (Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss). On June 3, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their opposition to PRHTA's motion to dismiss. Opp'n to “Defs. PRHTA's Mot. for Dismissal” (Docket #149) (ECF No. 150) (Pls.' Opp'n to Mot. to Dismiss). On June 10, 2021, PRHTA filed its reply to Plaintiffs' opposition to its motion to dismiss. Reply to “Pls.' Opp'n to Defs. PRHTA's Mot. for Dismissal” (Docket #150) (ECF No. 151) (Def.'s Reply to Opp'n to Mot. to Dismiss).

On November 5, 2021, the Court issued an order seeking clarification from the parties as to whether the Court could consider documents submitted by the parties in their briefing on the motion to dismiss that were outside the Second Amended Complaint. Order (ECF No. 152). The Plaintiffs' position was that the Court should not consider any of the extrinsic documents, Mot. in Compliance with Order (Docket # 152) (ECF No. 153), which the Court interpreted as a denial of (or at least a refusal to admit) the authenticity of the extrinsic documents. Order at 2 (ECF No. 155). After the Court sought further clarification from the parties as to what the Court should do with the pending motion to dismiss, see id., PRHTA requested that the Court convert the pending motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d). Mot. in Compliance with Ct. Order (Docket No. 155) (ECF No. 156). On November 16, 2021, the Court granted PRHTA's request, converting the pending motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Order (ECF No. 157).

On December 15, 2021, PRHTA filed a motion for summary judgment and statement of material facts. Mot. in Compliance with Ct. Order (Docket No. 155) (ECF No. 160), Attach. 1, Mot. Requesting Summ. J. (Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J.); id., Attach. 2, Statement of Uncontested Material Facts (DSMF). On January 14, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their memorandum in opposition to PRHTA's statement of material facts, Opp'n to Statement of Material Facts and Additional Facts Not In Controversy (Docket #149) (ECF No. 161) at 1-2 (PRDSMF), their statement of additional material facts, id. at 2-5 (PSAMF), and their opposition to PRHTA's motion for summary judgment. Opp'n to “Defs. PRHTA's Mot. for Dismissal” (Docket #149) (ECF No. 163) (Pl.'s Opp'n to Summ. J.). On January 31, 2022, PRHTA filed its reply to the Plaintiffs' opposition, Reply to Pl.'s “Opp'n to Defs. PRHTA's Mot. for Dismissal (Docket #163) (ECF No. 164) (Def.'s Reply to Opp'n for Summ. J.), and opposition to the Plaintiffs' statement of additional material facts. Opp'n to Statement of Additional Facts Not In Controversy Submitted By Plaintiffs (Docket No. 161) (ECF No. 165) (DRPSAMF). On February 9, 2022, with leave of the Court, the Plaintiffs filed a sur-rely in response to PRHTA's opposition to the Plaintiffs' statement of material facts and opposition to summary judgment. Sur Reply to PRHTA's “Reply to Pls.' Opp'n to Defs. PRHTA's Mot. for Dismissal (Docket #164) (ECF No. 168) (Pls.' Sur-Reply).

II. FACTS^[1]

The Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority (PRHTA) is a public corporation and government instrumentality of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. DSMF ¶ 1; PRDSMF ¶ 1. PRHTA was created with the purpose of providing the public with the best roads and means of transportation, to expedite the movement of vehicles and individuals, and to relieve hazards and inconveniences caused by congestion on Commonwealth roads. DSMF ¶ 2; PRDSMF ¶ 2. As part of a construction project, PRHTA hired Del Valle to oversee construction, maintenance of the traffic changes related to the project, and implementation of all traffic control measures. DSMF ¶ 6; PRDSMF ¶ 6. On or around March 2021 the Plaintiffs reached an agreement with Del Valle and requested that the Court dismiss their claim, with prejudice, in favor of Del Valle. DSMF ¶ 7; PRDSMF ¶ 7. The agreement was reached via a private and confidential agreement between the parties. DSMF ¶ 8; PRDSMF ¶ 8. On March 23, 2021, the Court granted the motion, dismissing the Complaint with prejudice as to Del Valle Group. DSMF ¶ 9; PRDSMF ¶ 9. That same day, PRHTA informed the Court and the other parties of its intent to request a copy of the Del Valle settlement agreement. DSMF ¶ 10; PRDSMF ¶ 10. The Court ordered the parties to provide a copy of the confidential settlement agreement and they complied. DSMF ¶¶ 11-12; PRDSMF ¶¶ 11-12.^[2]

The Plaintiffs retained Dr. Farhad Booeshaghi as an expert in traffic safety and he executed an unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury authenticating his Rule 26 liability report. PSAMF ¶ 6; DRPSAMF ¶ 6.^[3] In his report, Dr. Booeshaghi concluded that “[t]he inspector of the project (PRHTA) failed to recognize the deficiencies of the roadway construction MOT [maintenance of traffic]”. PSAMF ¶ 7; DRPSAMF ¶ 7. Some of the deficiencies listed on Booeshaghi's report were that:

The Outside Shoulder Lane was not properly identified as a designated lane of travel as it did not have the proper pavement markings, including a fog line or lines that funneled traffic into that lane.

The new pavement in the Shoulder Lane began near Km. 27.2. The new pavement in the Shoulder Lane should have started near Km. 27.3 where the drums first began to merge Lane 2 traffic with Lane 1 traffic.

The original Lane 1 centerline and fog line should have been removed and replaced by pavement markings that shifted traffic from Lane 2 into Lane 1 and shifted traffic from Lane 1 into the Shoulder Lane beginning near Km. 27.3 prior to allowing the northbound traffic use of the Shoulder Lane.

PSAMF ¶ 7 (quoting Unsworn Decl. Under Penalty of Perjury at 54 (ECF No. 162) (Expert Report)); DRPSAMF ¶ 7.^[4] Dr. Booeshaghi opined that “[b]ecause of the improper MOT, the Shoulder Lane should not have been opened to northbound through traffic as a lane of travel on the day of the accident and the accident would not have occurred.” PSAMF ¶ 8 (quoting Expert Report at 55); DRPSAMF ¶ 8.^[5] In his report, Dr. Booeshaghi stated:

Because of the improper MOT, Noemi Figueroa Suliveres was not aware that the area where she stopped on the Shoulder Lane was a designated lane of travel due to the construction. (Exhibit 1, item #26, page 56)

But for the improper MOT on PR 52, Noemi Figueroa Suliveres would not have mistaken the Shoulder Lane as a non-travel lane and she would not have stopped her Mercedes in the Shoulder Lane where it was

...