Nieves-Ortiz v. Corporacion Del Centro Cardiovascular De P.R. Y Del Caribe

• Decision Date: 23 June 2022
• Docket Number: CIVIL 20-1717 (ADC)
• Parties: DR. OMAR NIEVES-ORTIZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CORPORACION DEL CENTRO CARDIOVASCULAR DE PUERTO RICO Y DEL CARIBE, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

DR. OMAR NIEVES-ORTIZ, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
CORPORACION DEL CENTRO CARDIOVASCULAR DE PUERTO RICO Y DEL CARIBE, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL No. 20-1717 (ADC)

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico

June 23, 2022

OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is co-defendants Dr. Juan Carlos Sotomonte-Ariza (“Dr. Sotomonte”) and Heart Rhythm Management P.S.C.'s (“HRM”) motion to dismiss. ECF No. 27. Also before the Court is co-defendants Medtronic Puerto Rico Operations Co. (“Medtronic”) and Edgardo Hernandez-Vila's (“Hernandez”) motion to dismiss. ECF No. 39. Co-defendant Corporation del Centro Cardiovascular de Puerto Rico y del Caribe ("CCC") joined both motions. ECF No. 52. For the reasons below, both motions to dismiss are GRANTED.

I. Background

Plaintiff Dr. Omar Nieves-Ortiz (“plaintiff”) filed suit against Dr. Sotomonte, HRM, Medtronic, Hernandez and CCC (together, “defendants”). ECF No. 1. As relevant herein, plaintiff raised federal antitrust, Puerto Rico antitrust, and Puerto Rico tort law claims against the defendants. Id.

1

Plaintiff is a doctor with privileges at CCC. Id. Dr. Sotomonte is the Medical Director at CCC. Id. He also maintains a private medical practice, which he manages under HRM, a corporation he formed. Id. Both plaintiff and Dr. Sotomonte are cardiac electrophysiologists. Id.

Medtronic manufactures and sells medical products such as pacemakers and defibrillators. Id. As relevant herein, Medtronic sells medical devices to be used in cardiac electrophysiology procedures at CCC. Id. Hernandez is the Medtronic sales representative that is assigned to CCC. Id.

Plaintiff imputes antitrust violations in relation to the six following alleged actions taken by the defendants:

1. “Guaranteeing a market share” for Medtronic products at CCC. Id. at 50

2. Providing emergency room contracts in exchange for patient referrals to HRM. Id.

3. Instituting a transfer program for cardiology patients that purportedly served as a pipeline for patient referrals to HRM. Id.

4. Employing other cardiac electrophysiologists at HRM to reduce competition. Id. at 51

5. Obtaining patient referrals from cardiology fellows “by devious means.” Id.

6. Tying the provision of cardiac electrophysiology services to the purchase of Medtronic medical devices. Id.

2

Plaintiff maintains these alleged antitrust violations have caused him harm by limiting his choice in the medical devices he utilizes and by inflicting economic loss.^[1] Id.

Now, the defendants move to dismiss. ECF Nos. 27 and 39. They attack plaintiff's standing to challenge the alleged antitrust violations and posit that plaintiff has failed to plausibly plead his claims. Id.

II. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) authorizes the dismissal of a complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. “To avoid dismissal, a complaint must provide ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.'” Garcia-Catalan v. United States, 734 F.3d 100, 102 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)). When ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a district court must “ask whether the complaint states a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, accepting the plaintiff's factual allegations and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.” Cooper v. Charter Communications Entertainments I, LLC, 760 F.3d 103, 106 (1st Cir. 2014) (citing Maloy v. Ballori-Lage, 744 F.3d 250, 252 (1st Cir. 2014)) (internal quotations marks omitted).

“To cross the plausibility threshold, the plaintiff must ‘plead factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the...