Rivera v. Sam's Club Humacao
Decision Date | 28 September 2018 |
Docket Number | Civil No. 16-2307 (ADC) |
Citation | 386 F.Supp.3d 188 |
Parties | Lainey Ann RIVERA, Plaintiff, v. SAM'S CLUB HUMACAO, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Doris Quinones-Tridas, Quinones Tridas Law Office, PSC, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff.
Alberto G. Estrella, Kenneth C. Suria-Rivera, Estrella, LLC, San Juan, PR, for Defendants.
There are several pending matters before the Court in this case. Defendant Wal-Mart of Puerto Rico, Inc., d/b/a Sam's Club Humacao ("Wal-Mart") filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 37 . Plaintiff Lainey Ann Rivera ("plaintiff") filed a response in opposition. ECF No. 48 . Wal-Mart filed a surreply after seeking leave of the Court. ECF No. 55 . Plaintiff also filed a motion for sanctions due to spoliation of evidence simultaneously with her opposition to summary judgment. ECF No. 47 . Wal-Mart opposed the motion for sanctions. ECF No. 54 .
Prior to ruling on summary judgment, the Court referred the spoliation matter to a Magistrate Judge for mediation, evaluation, and adjudication as deemed appropriate. ECF No. 57 . The Court subsequently referred the summary judgment motion for a report and recommendation ("R&R") based on the interrelationship of issues between the two motions. ECF No. 68 . The Magistrate's R&R recommends granting summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart, which would moot plaintiff's spoliation motion. ECF No. 69 . Plaintiff timely objected to the R&R. ECF No. 70 . Wal-Mart filed a response to plaintiff's objection. ECF No. 71 .
For the reasons explained below, the Court hereby REJECTS the R&R. ECF No. 69 . The motion for summary judgment at ECF No. 37 is DENIED and the motion for sanctions based on spoliation of evidence at ECF No. 47 is GRANTED .
The question at the heart of this negligence case is how plaintiff's father, Roberto Eric Rivera-Mojica ("Roberto"1 ), fell while visiting a Sam's Club warehouse in Humacao, Puerto Rico. Upon returning home from Sam's Club, Roberto experienced several seizures and lost consciousness. Two days later, he died in a hospital from a cerebral hemorrhage
. ECF No. 1.
The parties dispute whether Supervisor or Assistant Manager ever offered Roberto an ambulance or an opportunity to complete a written statement ECF No. 48 at 10. They also dispute what visible signs of injury Roberto exhibited after his fall. In its proposed uncontested facts, Wal-Mart focused on Ada's statement that she did not notice any visible injuries when she returned from the restroom. Plaintiff opposed, noting that Ada described Roberto as complaining of leg pain immediately after the incident, of needing to hold onto the shopping cart for walking-assistance, and of feeling too unwell to exit the vehicle during their brief errand before returning home. Plaintiff also noted that Supervisor described Roberto as limping
, dizzy, and talking slowly after the fall, while both Supervisor and Assistant Manager observed a red welt on the back of Roberto's head after the fall. ECF Nos. 37-4 at 13, 18; 47-1 at 19; 48 at 7–8. The Humacao Sam's Club Store Manager, José I. Ayerdi-Santiago ("Manager") recalled that Supervisor said Roberto was "clutching his belly" after his fall. ECF
Wal-Mart also omits the completion of this narrative from its statement of uncontested facts. According to plaintiff, Roberto returned home and experienced severe pain in his left leg and hip, lightheadedness, disorientation, and several seizures before losing consciousness. ECF No. 1 at 4–5. An ambulance transported Roberto from his home to Ryder Memorial Hospital.
Id. at 5. The providers at Ryder Memorial Hospital transferred him to Puerto Rico Medical Center, where, two days after his fall, doctors diagnosed Roberto as brain dead and removed him from life support. Id. Upon learning of Roberto's death, Supervisor and Manager visited Roberto's family to pay their condolences and offer to help with the funeral, during which time Ada told them that the swing caused Roberto's fall while another family member noted that Roberto had difficulty walking. ECF Nos. 48-1 at 9-11; 48-4 at 8, 12. Sometime after the incident, Ada returned to Sam's Club to complete an incident report. ECF Nos. 37-5 at 8; 48-7 at 10.
Plaintiff filed the underlying complaint based on diversity jurisdiction, seeking damages for Wal-Mart's negligence on the theory that a defective swing caused Roberto's fall and subsequent death. ECF No. 1 . Specifically, plaintiff's complaint alleges that "co-defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to consider the foreseeable consequences of having a faulty manufactured or assembled swing exposed for use by customers, and/or encouraging its use, while having it [on] display without further warnings." Id. at 6. Wal-Mart answered the complaint and subsequently moved for summary judgment based on its assertion that plaintiff lacks admissible, non-hearsay evidence to prove the causation element of her negligence claim. ECF No. 37-1 at 21–23. Wal-Mart relies on the lack of eyewitness testimony, surveillance footage, and evidence establishing that the swing was defective or defectively assembled. Id. Plaintiff opposed the motion for summary judgment and concurrently filed a separate motion for sanctions due to spoliation of evidence, arguing that Wal-Mart intentionally destroyed relevant surveillance footage, the swing, and any documents it created in relation to an internal investigation of the incident. ECF Nos. 48 at 4; 47 .
Magistrate judges are granted authority to make recommendations on summary judgment motions, but the ultimate resolution of dispositive motions remains at the discretion of the presiding judge. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 ; accord Loc. Civ. R. 72(a)(4). A party may object to the magistrate's findings and recommendations within a specified timeframe. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The presiding district judge must review "de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Id. R. 72(b)(3). In conducting this review, the district judge is free to "accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition." Id.
Plaintiff timely objected to the R&R, specifically challenging its findings of facts and the disposition of the intertwined summary judgment and spoliation issues, as well as the R&R's conclusion that plaintiff lacks admissible evidence in support...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Philips Med. Sys. P.R. v. Alpha Biomedical & Diagnostic Corp.
...in bad faith. 8 Philips Medical Systems PR, Inc., et al. v. Alpha Biomedical & Diagnostic Corp., et al., Civil. No. 19-1488 (BJM) 9 386 F.Supp.3d 188, 206 (D.P.R. 2018) (alterations in original) (quoting Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 765-66 (1980) (superseded on other grounds))......
-
Collins v. Walmart Stores E., LP
...record” for spoliating evidence, quoting the District of Puerto Rico's determination in Rivera v. Sam's Club Humacao. Pl. Br., 1-2; 386 F.Supp.3d 188, 208-209 (P.R.D.C. 2018). The District of Puerto Rico cited 18 cases from throughout the country where it had been found that, at minimum, a ......
- In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for Puerto Rico
-
Rodriguez-Benitez v. Berrios-Echevarria
...was potentially relevant to that claim. See Testa v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 173, 177 (1st Cir.1998); Rivera v. Sam's Club Humacao, 386 F. Supp. 3d 188, 200 (D.P.R. 2018). If that "evidentiary foundation" is properly laid, "a trier of fact may (but need not) infer from a party's obl......