Oquendo v. Costco Wholehouse Corp.
| Decision Date | 07 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIV. NO. 17-2238 (MDM) |
| Parties | JOAN OQUENDO, Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLEHOUSE CORPORATION Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Plaintiff Joan Oquendo ("plaintiff" or "Oquendo"), a current Costco employee, brings this action against Costco Wholehouse Corporation d/b/a Costco Wholehouse #365 ("defendant" or "Costco") alleging pregnancy and gender discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1962, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5 et seq. ("Title VII), disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Oquendo also asserts supplemental claims under Puerto Rico's Law 3 of March 13, 1942, as amended, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, §§ 467-474 ("Law 3"); Law 100 of June 30, 1959, as amended, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, §§ 146-151 ("Law 100"); Law 44 of July 2, 1985 P.R. Laws Ann., tit. 1, § 504 ("Law 44"); Law 115 of December 20, 1991, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, §§ 194 et seq. ("Law 115"); and Articles 1802 and 1803 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5141.
Presently before the Court is Costco's motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 26,) which Oquendo opposed. (Docket No. 32). She also filed a statement of additional facts with her opposition. (Docket No. 33). Costco then filed a reply in response thereto. (Docket Nos. 35-1; 36). Next, Oquendo filed a sur-reply. (Docket No. 37). In light of the findings of fact and legal discussion set forth below, the Court GRANTS Costco's motion for summary judgment in its entirety.
Before delving into the analysis of Costco's motion for summary judgment, however, the Court must entertain two motions to strike filed by Costco, which are directly related to the summary judgment motion and, as such, engross the Court's opening discussion.
In its first motion, Costco asks the Court to strike specific "scandalous" and "slanderous" language directed at Costco and its legal counsel, which was allegedly included in plaintiff's opposition to the motion for summary judgment and in plaintiff's sur-reply. (Docket No. 38). In its second motion to strike, Costco requests that the Court strike plaintiff's sur-reply (Docket No. 37) for being untimely filed and for not being filed with prior leave of Court, in violation of Local Rule 7(c). (Docket No. 39). Plaintiff filed a single opposition to both motions to strike. (Docket No. 40). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS both motions to strike.
[The] decent behavior and treatment characterized by generally accepted social behavior and politeness practiced toward those with whom we come into contact whether they be judge, lawyer, witness, or court personnel.
Bruce S. Mencher, Civility: A Casualty of Modern Litigation, The Washington Lawyer, Sept.-Oct. 1993, at 19, 20. "To opposing counsel, a lawyer owes the duty of courtesy, candor in the pursuit of the truth, cooperation in all respects not inconsistent with the client's interests and scrupulous observance of all mutual understandings." American College of Trial Attorneys, Code of Trial Conduct, p. 1 (1994). "The lack of civility within the legal profession constitutes a 'societal problem, increased costs to the client, and the need for greater judicial leadership . . . .'" Jaen v. Coca-Cola Co., 157 F.R.D. 146, 152-53 (D.P.R. 1994) (citing Mencher, supra, at 20). In pertinent part, moreover, Canon 29 of the Puerto Rico Canons of Professional Ethics states that:
§29 Personalities arising between opposing counsel, T. 4 Ap. IX, § 29. While the Canons of Professional Ethics of Puerto Rico do not govern the conduct of attorneys in federal court, "[n]onetheless, the raison d'etre of both the Model Rules and the Puerto Rico Canons of Ethics are akin—to preserve the integrity of the legal profession." In re Jesus M. Rivera-Arvelo, USDC-PR, 830 F. Supp. 665, 667, n.5 (D.P.R. 1993). Because the Canons of Professional Ethics of Puerto Rico are similar in spirit to those of the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct, courts in this District look at the Puerto Rico Canons and their interpretive jurisprudence for illustrative purposes. Reed v. Seguros Triple-S, Inc., No. 96-1171 (SEC), 1997 WL 711371, at *1 (D.P.R. Oct. 24, 1997).
In the present case, two of the plaintiff's filings in response to Costco's motion for summary judgment included unprofessional and highly improper language clearly aimed at bad-mouthing Costco and, necessarily, its counsel. Plaintiff, for example, requested that the Court ". . . deny a deceitful dispositive motion," and referred to Costco's motion as "profuse with deceitful storytelling of what defense wants the Court to believe." Basically, plaintiff's counsel accused Costco, and more pointedly, its attorneys, of engaging in deceitful and nefarious tactics in its motion for summary judgment. It goes without saying that it is highly unethical and indecorous for an attorney to make dishonest or damaging imputations against the opposing party or against the reputation and good name of a fellow attorney. Costco correctly understood plaintiff's counsel's accusations as a direct attack on the professional integrity and reputation of its attorneys. The unfounded word choices and ill-mannered form of "argumentation," included in the plaintiff's filings, serve no purpose but to throw "shade" at the opposing side, while doing nothing to advance her position in a legitimate and juridical sense. Such conduct is unbecoming of a member of the bar of this Court and will not be tolerated.
Furthermore, plaintiff's counsel's poor choice of words has required the Court to utilize its scarce judicial resources to discuss his lack of civility and imprudent arguments. It is also troubling that, upon reviewing Costco's motions, it became pellucid to the Court that plaintiff's categorization of Costco's arguments as "deceitful" were in fact deceiving because it became clear to the Court that Costco's motion was grounded on sound legal arguments. Plaintiff, of course, may legitimately disagree with Costco's position but rather than posturing with unethical averments directed at the reputation of the opposing side, she should have instead focused on advancing her legal arguments in a legitimate and well-reasoned manner.
The Court cannot stress enough that attorneys admitted to practice in this Court "should avoid disparaging personal remarks or acrimony toward opposing counsel, and should remain wholly uninfluenced by any ill feeling between the respective clients" and they "should abstain from any allusion to personal peculiarities and idiosyncrasy of opposing counsel." American College of Trial Attorneys, Code of Trial Conduct, p. 7 (1994). Moreover, the parties and their counsel were specifically instructed in this case "to meet their legal and ethical obligations to each other, to litigants and to the system of justice, thereby achieving the twin goals of civility and professionalism, both of which are hallmarks of a learned profession dedicated to public service." See Chief Judge Gustavo A. Gelpí's Standing Order citing to the standards of civility initially designed in 1996 by the late United States District Judge Salvador E. Casellas. (Docket No. 4-5).
The Court recognizes that litigating is not always a "cup of tea," nevertheless, civility must always be observed between the parties and their counsel, as it is a vital pillar in the justice system and in our society. To that effect, "courts have a responsibility not to permit attorneys to ignore the concept of civility when its disregard may hinder the quest for justice." Jaen, 157 F.R.D. at 152-53 (citing Mencher, supra, at 20).
The Court will not tolerate the deliberate disregard of civility displayed by plaintiff's counsel in his pleadings. Therefore, in enforcing its solemn duty and responsibility to ensure compliance with the pertinent rules of ethics and professional conduct, the Court admonishes plaintiff's counsel for his lack of civility and orders him to refrain from using unprofessional and unethical language in his filings. Costco's motion to strike is GRANTED and the language complained of by Costco is stricken.
Costco also moves to strike plaintiff's sur reply (Docket No. 37) on the grounds that it was untimely filed, and it was filed without prior leave of Court in violation of Local Rule 7(c). Costco is correct. The sur reply was indeed belatedly filed without first obtaining leave from the Court. More specifically, Costco filed its reply in response to plaintiff's opposition to the motion for summary judgment on December 21, 2018. (Docket No. 36). Pursuant to Local Rule 7(c), Plaintiff had seven (7) days to file a sur reply, that is, until December 28, 2018. Plaintiff however filed it on January 2, 2019, five (5) days after the required seven-day timeframe had...
To continue reading
Request your trial