Tamayo v. Sw. Airlines Co.

• Decision Date: 19 June 2019
• Docket Number: CIVIL NO.: 17-2129 (MEL)
• Parties: J. LINCOLN TAMAYO and MARIA T. TAMAYO, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES COMPANY and GMD AIRLINE SERVICES, INC., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

J. LINCOLN TAMAYO and MARIA T. TAMAYO, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES COMPANY and GMD AIRLINE SERVICES, INC., Defendants.

CIVIL NO.: 17-2129 (MEL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

June 19, 2019

OPINION AND ORDER

J. Lincoln Tamayo and Maria T. Tamayo ("Plaintiffs") filed a complaint against Southwest Airlines Company, GMD Airlines Services, Inc., and various unidentified insurance companies ("Defendants") on August 23, 2017.¹ ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs alleged negligence by Southwest Airlines Company ("Southwest") and by GMD Airlines Services, Inc. ("GMD"). Id. at 3-4. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), contending that the damages suffered by Plaintiffs are minor and do not exceed the $75,000 threshold necessary for the existence of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. ECF No. 40. On January 28, 2019, the court entered an order denying Defendants' motion to dismiss. ECF No. 43. Pending before the court is Defendants' motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 44. Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition, which they supplemented pursuant to a court order. ECF Nos. 45-47. Defendants filed a reply to the response in opposition. ECF No. 48.

I. MOTION TO DISMISS STANDARD UNDER RULE 12(b)(1)

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) ("Rule 12(b)(1)"), a defendant may move to dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. "As courts of limited jurisdiction, federal courts have the duty to construe their jurisdictional grants narrowly." Fina Air, Inc. v. United States, 555 F. Supp. 2d 321, 323 (D.P.R. 2008) (citing Alicea Rivera v. SIMED, 12 F. Supp. 2d 243, 245 (D.P.R. 1998)). Since federal courts have limited jurisdiction, the party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of demonstrating the existence of federal jurisdiction. See Murphy v. United States, 45 F. 3d 520, 522 (1st Cir. 1995); Droz-Serrano v. Caribbean Records Inc., 270 F. Supp. 2d 217 (D.P.R. 2003).

Challenges to subject matter jurisdiction through a Rule 12(b)(1) motion may constitute either a facial or factual challenge. Valentín v. Hospital Bella Vista, 254 F.3d 358, 363 (1st Cir. 2001); Mercado Arocho v. United States, 455 F. Supp. 2d 15, 18 (D.P.R. 2006); Rivera de León v. Maxon Engineering Servs., Inc., 283 F. Supp. 2d 550, 554 (D.P.R. 2003). To decide whether a 12(b)(1) motion is a facial or factual challenge, a court must determine whether the motion disputes the complaint's allegations regarding subject matter jurisdiction. Torres-Negrón v. J & N Records, LLC, 504 F.3d 151, 162 n.8 (1st Cir. 2007). If the 12(b)(1) motion does not dispute subject matter allegations, then it challenges only the facial sufficiency of the complaint. Id. If the 12(b)(1) motion disputes the subject matter allegations, then it challenges the factual basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Id.

Under a facial challenge, the moving party challenges jurisdiction based on the allegations in the complaint. See Valentín, 254 F.3d at 363; Mercado Arocho, 455 F. Supp. 2d at 18; Rivera de León, 283 F. Supp. 2d at 554. Thus, "the court must consider all the allegations in the complaint as true, and will not look beyond the face of the complaint to determine jurisdiction." MercadoArocho, 455 F. Supp. 2d at 18. A facial attack only requires a court to examine the complaint and determine whether the plaintiff "has sufficiently alleged a basis of subject matter jurisdiction." Torres-Negrón, 504 F.3d at 162 (quoting Scarfo v. Ginsburg, 175 F.3d 957, 960 (11th Cir. 1999)); see, e.g., Fina Air Inc., 555 F. Supp. 2d at 325-28 (examining a facial attack and applying the standard articulated in Torres-Negrón).

Under a factual challenge, "the allegations have no presumptive truthfulness, and the court . . . has discretion to allow affidavits, documents, and even a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts." Mercado Arocho, 455 F. Supp. 2d at 18 (citations omitted) (quoting Reynolds v. Nelson, Civ. No. 05-3470-PHX-ROS, 2006 WL 2404364, at *1 (D. Ariz. July 17, 2006)). The analysis changes depending on whether the challenged facts would also decide issues relating to the merits of the case. Torres-Negrón, 504 F.3d at 163. If the challenged facts do involve the merits of the case, the court must use a summary judgment standard and dismiss "'only if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.'" Id. (quoting Trentacosta v. Frontier Pac. Aircraft Indus., Inc., 813 F.2d 1553, 1558 (9th Cir. 1987)). If the challenged facts do not involve the merits of the case, then the court is free to consider evidence and decide the question of its subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Id.

II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT

On November 16, 2016, Plaintiffs checked in with Southwest at the Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport in Puerto Rico. ECF No. 1, at 2. Because Mr. Tamayo required wheelchair assistance, Southwest directed that he be escorted through airport security by an agent of GMD, Southwest's wheelchair contractor. Id. at 2-3. An agent of GMD pushed Mr. Tamayo to security, where Mr. Tamayo was instructed to pass through without the wheelchair. Id. at 3. Mr. Tamayoexited the wheelchair and passed through security. Id. GMD's agent met him on the other side with the wheelchair. Id. When Mr. Tamayo sat on the wheelchair, it locked out under his weight and cut part of his right pinky finger. Id. Plaintiffs allege that "Mr. Tamayo suffered bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering, disability, mental anguish, lost capacity for the enjoyment of life, the expense of hospitalization and medical care and treatment, aggravation of pre-existing injuries, lost wages, and impaired earning capacity. These losses are permanent and continuing in nature and [Mr. Tamayo] will suffer these losses in the future." Id. at 4. Plaintiffs also allege that "Mrs. Tamayo suffered intense mental anguish upon seeing her husband's finger amputated, and upon seeing his own suffering." Id. Plaintiffs seek $300,000 in damages. Id.

III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS IN THE MOTION TO DISMISS

In the case at bar, Defendants have challenged the factual allegations of the complaint as to subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 40, at 2. Thus, the court may look beyond the face of the complaint and has discretion "to allow affidavits, documents, and even a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts" to determine the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Mercado Arocho, 455 F. Supp. 2d at 18.

In support of their motion to dismiss, Defendants directed the court's attention to Plaintiffs' depositions and Mr. Tamayo's medical records. The evidence revealed that a paramedic cleaned Mr. Tamayo's finger and applied Neosporin and a Band-Aid or bandage at the airport in Puerto Rico. ECF No. 40-1, at 32. Mr. Tamayo told the paramedic that he preferred to obtain medical treatment in Tampa. Id. He took Tylenol before his flight. Id. at 44. When he arrived at Memorial Hospital in Tampa, he stated that his pain level was zero and declined pain medication. Id. at 42, 45-46. Mr. Tamayo had follow-up visits to Memorial Hospital on November 23, 2016 and December 7, 2016. Id. at 48.

Memorial Hospital referred Mr. Tamayo to an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Daniel Murphy. Id. at 46-47. Mr. Tamayo visited Dr. Murphy on five occasions: November 22, 2016, December 1, 2016, December 19, 2016, January 3, 2017, and January 31, 2017. ECF No. 40-2.

Mr. Tamayo's amputated fingertip has grown back, including his nail.² ECF No. 40-1, at 84-85. However, he does not have a fingerprint. Id. at 39. His finger is "tender" and "occasionally painful" and he does not have full sensation in it. Id.

IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS

Generally, multiple plaintiffs cannot aggregate their claims to meet the amount in controversy. CE Design Ltd. v. Am. Econ. Ins. Co., 755 F.3d 39, 43 (1st Cir. 2014). There is an exception to this rule in cases where several plaintiffs seek to enforce a single title or right, in which they have a "common and undivided interest." Id. (quoting Troy Bank of Troy, Indiana v. G.A. Whitehead & Co., 222 U.S. 39, 40-41 (1911)). "[I]ndividually cognizable and calculable claims" do not meet this definition. Id. at 44.

Turning to the case at bar, Plaintiffs' claims are individually cognizable and calculable because even though their alleged injuries resulted from the same event, they must be proven separately. See Rodríguez v. P.L. Indus., Inc., 53 F. Supp. 2d 538, 541 (D.P.R. 1999) ("Plaintiffs' argument that their claims must be aggregated because their independent claims result from a single act by Defendant is not compelling."). Thus, Plaintiffs' claims cannot be aggregated to meet the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement. This leaves two possible scenarios in which the court might exercise diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims. First, the claims might exceed the amount in controversy individually. Second, if one of the claims cannot exceed the amount in controversy, the court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim. ExxonMobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005) (holding that as long as one party in a diversity jurisdiction action alleges a sufficient amount in controversy, the court may exert jurisdiction over other parties in the case even when those parties' own allegations are insufficient to meet the amount in controversy).

Here, Ms. Tamayo's claim for "intense mental anguish" does not exceed the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement. ECF No. 1, at 4. In Rosario Ortega v. Star-Kist Foods, Inc., 370 F.3d 124, 129 (1st Cir. 2004) (reversed on other grounds), the First Circuit held that the emotional distress claims of family members of an injured girl could not meet the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement. Factors the First Circuit examined included whether the family members believed the girl would die...