Rivera-Carrasquillo v. Calderon-Lozano, 1st Cir. (2016)

7/26/2019 Rivera-Carrasquillo v. Calderon-Lozano, 1st Cir. (2016)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rivera-carrasquillo-v-calderon-lozano-1st-cir-2016 1/48

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1047

ÁNGELA RI VERA- CARRASQUI LLO; J OSÉ HERNÁNDEZ- QUI ÑONES; CONJ UGALPARTNERSHI P HERNÁNDEZ- RI VERA,

Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ees ,

v.

CENTRO ECUESTRE MADRI GAL, I NC. , d/ b/ a Haci enda Madr i gal ;

I NTEGRAND ASSURANCE COMPANY; PASI ÓN ECUESTRE, I NC. ; GERARDOCALDERÓN- LOZANO,

Def endant s, Appel l ant s,

FLORENCI O BERRÍ OS- CASTRODAD; I RMA SARA CASI LLAS; AGROMONTELLANO, I NC. , CRI ADERO LA GLORI A, I NC. ; EDGARDO VÉLEZ;

RESTAURANTE EL ESTRI BO; CONJ UGAL PARTNERSHI P BERRÍ OS- CASI LLAS,

Def endant s.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. J osé Ant oni o Fust é, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef ore

Tor r uel l a, Lynch, and Thompson,Ci r cui t J udges.

Eduardo Cobi an- Roi g, wi t h whom J osé R. Dávi l a- Acevedo andCobi an & Boni l l a, P. S. C. , wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant s.

J osé L. Ubar r i , wi t h whom Davi d W. Román and Ubar r i & RománLaw Of f i ce wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ees.



J anuar y 25, 2016



- 3 -

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Spendi ng t i me ast r i de an

ani mal as magni f i cent , spi r i t ed, and power f ul as a hor se can be

r i sky busi ness. Unf or t unat el y, Ángel a Ri ver a- Car r asqui l l o

exper i enced t hi s f i r st - hand when she was t hr own f r om a hor se i n

t he mi dst of a gui ded r i de she and her husband, J osé Hernández-

Qui ñones, wer e t aki ng at a ranch out si de San J uan, Puer t o Ri co.

Ri ver a suf f er ed some pr et t y si gni f i cant i nj ur i es i n her

f al l , so she and her husband1 f i l ed sui t , and t hey ul t i mat el y

secur ed a j ur y ver di ct i n t hei r f avor at t he Puer t o Ri co f eder al

di st r i ct cour t . I n t hi s Cour t , t he appeal i ng def endant s say t he

di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n r ef usi ng ei t her t o gr ant t hem j udgment as

a mat t er of l aw or , f ai l i ng t hat , t o submi t t he quest i on of whet her

t he pl ai nt i f f s' sui t i s t i me- bar r ed t o t he j ur y. They al so ar gue

t hat cer t ai n par t i es may not be hel d l i abl e f or t he negl i gence of

t he company who r ent ed t he hor se t o Ri ver a and put on t he t our .

Af t er car ef ul r evi ew of t he at - t i mes- conf usi ng t r i al

r ecord and counsel s' appel l ate argument s, we are unabl e t o di scer n

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s reasons f or i t s rul i ngs. Because "we deem

t hi s a case wher e we f eel we need t he r easoni ng of t he di st r i ct

cour t , " Ander son v. Bost on Sch. Comm. , 105 F. 3d 762, 764 ( 1st Ci r .

1997) , we r emand f or t he di st r i ct cour t t o expl ai n i t s deci si on

1 Si nce we ar e f ocused on what happened at t r i al , we' l l si mpl ycal l t hem t he "pl ai nt i f f s . " Si mi l ar l y, we' l l r ef er t o any par t yt hat was a def endant i n t he di st r i ct cour t as a def endant her e.



- 5 -

A cl ai m f i l ed af t er t i me r uns out i s bar r ed, r egar dl ess of i t s

mer i t . Much of t he cont r over sy her e r evol ves around exact l y when

t hat one- year per i od began.

The one- year cl ock begi ns t i cki ng " f r om t he t i me t he

aggr i eved per son had knowl edge" of t he exi st ence of her cl ai m.

I d. ; see al so Rodr í guez- Sur í s v. Mont esi nos, 123 F. 3d 10, 13 ( 1st

Ci r . 1997) . To have "knowl edge" t hat she has a cl ai m - - t her eby

t r i gger i ng the count down - - a per son needs t o be aware not onl y

t hat she has been i nj ur ed, she al so needs t o know who i s ( or may

be) r esponsi bl e f or t hat i nj ur y. See Rodr í guez- Sur í s, 123 F. 3d at

13- 14 ( r ecogni zi ng t hat a pl ai nt i f f must have an "awar eness of t he

exi st ence of an i nj ur y" and knowl edge of t he i nj ur y' s "aut hor "

bef or e t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons begi ns t o r un) .

Puer t o Ri co' s Supr eme Cour t r ecogni zes t wo t ypes of

"knowl edge" as suf f i ci ent t o star t t he cl ock. Fi r st , a pl ai nt i f f

may have "actual knowl edge of both t he i nj ur y and of t he i dent i t y

of t he per son who caused i t . " Al ej andr o- Or t i z, 756 F. 3d at 27;

see al so Rodr í guez- Sur í s, 123 F. 3d at 13- 14. The one- year per i od

begi ns t o r un on t he dat e a pl ai nt i f f gai ns t hi s knowl edge. See

Al ej andr o- Or t i z, 756 F. 3d at 27.

Al t er nat i vel y, a pl ai nt i f f "i s deemed t o be on not i ce of

her cause of act i on i f she i s awar e of cer t ai n f act s t hat , wi t h

t he exer ci se of due di l i gence, shoul d l ead her t o acqui r e act ual

knowl edge of her cause of act i on. " I d. at 27. The t est f or t hi s



- 6 -

so- cal l ed "deemed knowl edge" i s an obj ect i ve one. I d. Under

Puer t o Ri co l aw, deemed knowl edge "i s essent i al l y par l ance f or t he

di scover y r ul e, whi ch st ands f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat ' [ t ] he one-

year [ st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons] does not begi n t o r un unt i l t he

pl ai nt i f f possesses, or wi t h due di l i gence woul d possess,

i nf or mat i on suf f i c i ent t o per mi t sui t . ' " I d. ( al t er at i ons i n

or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Vi l l ar i ni - Gar cí a v. Hosp. Del Maest r o, I nc. , 8

F. 3d 81, 84 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) ) . I n ot her wor ds, t he st at ut e of

l i mi t at i ons begi ns r unni ng at t he t i me a r easonabl y di l i gent per son

woul d di scover suf f i ci ent f act s t o al l ow her t o r eal i ze t hat she' d

been i nj ur ed and t o i dent i f y t he par t y responsi bl e f or t hat i nj ur y.

The r at i onal e bei ng, of cour se, t hat once a pl ai nt i f f comes i nt o

such knowl edge, she can f i l e sui t agai nst t he t or t f easor . 3

Det er mi ni ng t he dat e on whi ch a di l i gent pl ai nt i f f woul d

have l ear ned enough t o al l ow her t o f i l e sui t pr esent s a quest i on

of f act t hat may be submi t t ed t o t he j ur y i n an appr opr i at e case.

Espada v. Lugo, 312 F. 3d 1, 4- 5 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( concl udi ng f r om

3 The Puer t o Ri co Supr eme Cour t has r ecogni zed an except i ont o a pl ai nt i f f ' s actual or deemed knowl edge t r i gger i ng t he one-year l i mi t at i ons per i od: "[ w] her e t he t or t f easor , by way ofassur ances and r epr esent at i ons, per suades t he pl ai nt i f f t o r ef r ai nf r om f i l i ng sui t , or ot her wi se conceal s f r om t he pl ai nt i f f t hef act s necessary f or her t o acqui r e knowl edge, t he st at ut e ofl i mi t at i ons wi l l be t ol l ed. " Al ej andr o- Or t i z, 756 F. 3d at 27( ci t i ng Rodr í guez- Sur í s, 123 F. 3d at 16) . I t i s, however , "onl yt he assur ances of t he t or t f easor , and not t hose of a t hi r d par t y, "t hat can l ead t o such t ol l i ng. I d. at 29. Nei t her par t y i nvokest hi s pr i nci pl e of Puer t o Ri co l aw, so we need not ment i on i t agai n.



- 7 -

t he evi dence i n t he r ecor d t hat a j ur y coul d pr oper l y f i nd t he

pl ai nt i f f had been di l i gent i n i nvest i gat i ng t he cause of her

i nj ur y) ; Vi l l ar i ni - Gar cí a, 8 F. 3d at 86 ( "[ W] het her a pl ai nt i f f

has exer ci sed r easonabl e di l i gence i s usual l y a j ur y quest i on. "

( quot i ng Bohus v. Bel of f , 950 F. 2d 919, 925 ( 3d Ci r . 1991) ) ) ; see

al so i d. at 87 ( " [ E] ven wher e no r aw f act s are i n di sput e, t he

i ssues of due di l i gence and adequat e knowl edge ar e st i l l ones f or

t he j ur y so l ong as t he out come i s wi t hi n t he range wher e

r easonabl e men and women can di f f er . " ) .

Gener al l y speaki ng, t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons i s an

af f i r mat i ve def ense wi t h t he def endant bear i ng t he bur den of

est abl i shi ng t hat a cl ai m agai nst i t i s t i me- bar r ed. Asoci aci ón

de Suscr i pci ón Conj unt a del Segur o de Responsabi l i dad Obl i gat or i o

v. J uar be- J i ménez, 659 F. 3d 42, 50 n. 10 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . But a

pl ai nt i f f who, l i ke Ri ver a, sues mor e t han one year af t er t he dat e

of i nj ur y "bear s t he bur den of pr ovi ng t hat she l acked t he

r equi si t e ' knowl edge' at t he r el evant t i mes. " Al ej andr o- Or t i z,

756 F. 3d at 27 ( quot i ng Hodge v. Par ke Davi s & Co. , 833 F. 2d 6, 7

( 1st Ci r . 1987) ) . Put a l i t t l e di f f er ent l y, t o avoi d havi ng her

cl ai m bar r ed as unt i mel y, t he pl ai nt i f f must show ( per haps by

convi nci ng a j ur y) t hat despi t e her di l i gence i n pur sui ng her l egal

r i ght s, she di d not gai n enough knowl edge t o br i ng sui t unt i l

somet i me af t er t he dat e of her i nj ur y. Such a showi ng wi l l r esul t



- 8 -

i n t he one- year cl ock begi nni ng t o t i ck on some dat e af t er t he

i nj ur y. 4

Wi t h t hese basi c pr i nci pl es i n hand, we now t ur n t o what

happened t o Ri ver a and t he f act s r el evant t o when t he st atut e of

l i mi t at i ons began t o r un. Except f or a coupl e i nst ances (whi ch

we' l l poi nt out as we go al ong) , t hese f act s ar e not cont est ed.

Rat her , t hei r l egal consequence i s what ' s at st ake.

BACKGROUND

1. The Accident and the Ranch

Ri ver a was hur t on J ul y 4, 2009, when she was t hrown

f r om a r ent ed hor se she was r i di ng as par t of a gui ded t our on

4 Because our summar y of Puer t o Ri co' s st at ut e of l i mi t at i onsl aw i s suf f i ci ent f or us t o deci de t he appeal bef or e us, we havenot gi ven an exhaust i ve descr i pt i on of i t . I ndeed, Puer t o Ri col aw set s f or t h sever al other mechani sms by whi ch t he one- year

per i od may be t ol l ed, and we addr ess t hese onl y t o t he ext entnecessar y t o deci de t hi s appeal . We al so not e t hat , accor di ng t oa cer t i f i ed t r ansl at i on of a Puer t o Ri co Supr eme Cour t opi ni onsubmi t t ed by t he par t i es, appr oxi matel y t wo mont hs bef ore t hepl ai nt i f f s f i l ed t hei r compl ai nt i n t he f eder al di st r i ct cour t ,t he Puer t o Ri co Supr eme Cour t over r ul ed l ongst andi ng st ate l awt hat aut omat i cal l y t ol l ed t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons agai nst al l j oi nt t or t f easor s pr ovi ded t hat sui t was t i mel y br ought agai nst atl east one of t hem. See Fr aguada Boni l l a v. Hosp. Aux. Mut uo, 186D. P. R. 365 ( P. R. 2012) . ( And we not e t hat si nce "Puer t o Ri co i sa st at e f or di ver si t y- j ur i sdi ct i on pur poses, " Rodr í guez v. SeñorFr og' s de l a I sl a, I nc. , 642 F. 3d 28, 32 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) , ourr ef er ence t o "st at e l aw" i s appr opr i at e i n t hi s di ver si t y case. )Accor di ng t o t he par t i es' cer t i f i ed t r ansl at i on, hencef or t h "t hest at ut e of l i mi t at i ons must be t ol l ed separ at el y f or each j oi ntt or t f easor , " i n l i ght of t he Puer t o Ri co Supr eme Cour t ' s hol di ngt hat "t he t i mel y f i l i ng of a compl ai nt agai nst an al l eged j oi ntt or t f easor does not t ol l t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons agai nst t her est of t he al l eged j oi nt t or t f easor s. " Fr aguada Boni l l a, 186D. P. R. at 389 ( cer t i f i ed t r ansl at i on at 8) .



- 9 -

pr oper t y owned by Fl or enci o Ber r í os ( "Ber r í os" ) . Ber r í os used t he

l and as a r anch, or f arm, whi ch he operat ed t hr ough hi s own

cor por at i on, Cent r o Ecuest r e Madr i gal , I nc. ( "Madr i gal , I nc. ") . 5

But , as i t t ur ns out , Madr i gal , I nc. di d not own t he hor se Ri ver a

was r i di ng, nor di d i t ( or any of i t s empl oyees) own t he hor se-

r ent al busi ness or conduct t he t our she' d been on. Rat her , a

compl et el y separ at e company owned by Gerar do Cal der ón ( "Cal der ón")

- - Pasi ón Ecuest r e, I nc. ( "Pasi ón") - - owned t he hor se Ri ver a

r ent ed, and i t put on t he t our as par t of i t s hor se r ent al busi ness

conduct ed f r om Ber r í os' s pr oper t y.

Pasi ón oper at ed i t s busi ness pur suant t o a f i ve- year

l ease ( ef f ect i ve J une 15, 2007 t hr ough J une 13, 2012) wi t h

Madr i gal , I nc. 6 The l ease i ndi cat ed t hat Pasi ón was al l owed t o

use Madr i gal , I nc. ' s pr emi ses t o "keep i t s saddl e hor ses f or r ent

by t he gener al publ i c. " I n addi t i on t o payment of mont hl y r ent ,

t he l ease st i pul at ed t hat "[ a] l l l i abi l i t y wai ver s used by [ Pasi ón]

when r ent i ng hor ses must cl ear l y and pr eci sel y st at e t hat

[ Madr i gal , I nc. ] has no r el at i onshi p wi t h or obl i gat i on t o

5 Madr i gal , I nc. used t he name "Haci enda Madr i gal " as i t s"doi ng busi ness as" i dent i t y. To keep t hi ngs cl ear , we' l l si mpl yr ef er t o t he busi ness as Madr i gal , I nc.

6 Wi t h r espect t o t hat l ease, Madr i gal , I nc. was " r epr esent edby i t s Pr esi dent , [ Ber r í os] , " who si gned on t he cor por at i on' sbehal f . The l ease does not i ndi cat e t hat Ber r í os si gned i n hi sper sonal capaci t y.



- 10 -

[ Pasi ón] , and f ur t her mor e t hat [ Madr i gal , I nc. ] i s r el eased f r om

any l i abi l i t y t o [ Pasi ón' s] cust omer s. "

Ri ver a had gone t o t he r anch wi t h her husband and a

f ami l y f r i end af t er seei ng adver t i sement s f or hor se r i di ng at

Madr i gal , I nc. ' s f ar m. Thi s f r i end appar ent l y want ed t he out i ng

t o be hi s t r eat , and so he pai d f or i t on hi s cr edi t car d. Bef or e

set t i ng out on her r i de, Ri ver a si gned a wr i t t en l i abi l i t y r el ease

( "Rel ease" ) agr eei ng t hat nei t her Madr i gal , I nc. nor Pasi ón woul d

be l i abl e i n t he event she suf f er ed any i nj ur y. 7

Two of Pasi ón' s empl oyees act ed as t he gr oup' s gui des.

One r ode at t he f r ont t o l ead t he way, and t he ot her br ought up

t he r ear . At some poi nt dur i ng t he r i de, t he r ear gui de r ode

qui ckl y f r om t he back t o t he f r ont of t he l i ne. I n doi ng so, he

7

The document pur por t ed t o ser ve as a r el ease of al l cl ai msagai nst mor e t han j ust t hese t wo compani es, as i t al so l i st ed t hei r"of f i cer s, di r ect or s, manager s, agent s and r epr esent at i ves i nt hei r i ndi vi dual and cor por at e capaci t i es. " Her e' s t he l egal ese:

I , Angel a Ri ver a, of l egal age, on my ownbehal f and on behal f of any conj ugalpar t ner shi p, f r eel y, consci ousl y andvol unt ar i l y r el ease Haci enda Madr i gal , Cent r oEcuest r e Madr i gal , I nc. , Pasi ón Ecuest r e, I nc.and i t s of f i cer s, di r ect or s, manager s, agent sand r epr esent at i ves i n t hei r i ndi vi dual andcor por at e capaci t i es and thei r successor s andsubsi di ar i es, f ul l y and absol ut el y f r om anyl i abi l i t y di r ect l y or i ndi rect l y rel at ed t or ecreat i onal or any ot her ki nd of act i vi t i escar r i ed out , sponsor ed, hel d, per f or med orpromot ed i n any way by mysel f or any mi nor i nmy car e at Haci enda Madr i gal . . . .



- 11 -

passed cl ose t o Ri ver a' s horse, whi ch spooked. Ri ver a was t hr own

f r om her hor se af t er she pr oved unabl e t o mai nt ai n cont r ol of t he

ani mal .

Thi s appeal , at l east wi t h r espect t o Pasi ón ( and t o a

l esser ext ent , Cal der ón) , i s not pr i mar i l y about t he j ur y' s f i ndi ng

o f l i a b i l i t y . 8 The par t i es, r at her , have f ocused on Pasi ón' s and

Cal der ón' s cl ai ms t hat Ri ver a f ai l ed t o sue t he r i ght par t i es i n

t i me and, t her ef or e, t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons bar s her and her

husband' s cl ai ms. So bef or e goi ng f ur t her , we need t o di scuss

what el se was goi ng on at Madr i gal , I nc. ' s proper t y i n 2009 and

l ay out t he cast of char act er s i mpor t ant t o t he l egal anal ysi s t o

come.

On t he dat e of Ri ver a' s f al l , Pasi ón was not t he onl y

hor se- based busi ness at Madr i gal , I nc. ' s pr oper t y. A second

corporat i on, Cr i ader o La Gl or i a ( owned and oper ated by Edgardo

Vél ez ( "Vél ez" ) ) , l eased l and and 108 st abl es ther e. Cr i ader o La

Gl or i a pr ovi ded boar di ng ser vi ces f or of f - pr oper t y hor se owner s.

I t s cl i ent s woul d come t o Madr i gal , I nc. t o r i de t hei r hor ses and

use t he r anch' s f aci l i t i es. Li ke Pasi ón, t hi s company conduct ed

8 Madr i gal , I nc. and Cal der ón do rai se ar gument s t hat t heyar e separ at e and di st i nct f r om Pasi ón and, t her ef or e, ar e notl i abl e f or t he negl i gence of Pasi ón' s empl oyees. Si nce t hemaj or i t y of t he par t i es' ar gument s on appeal f ocus on t he st at ut eof l i mi t at i ons i ssue, we' l l deal wi t h t hat f i r st . Once we t akecar e of t hat , we' l l ci r cl e back and get i nt o these ot her gr oundsof appeal .



- 12 -

busi ness pur suant t o a l ease. The par t i es t o t hi s l ease, dat ed

J une 1, 2009, wer e Vél ez, Cr i adero La Gl or i a, Ber r í os ( t he pr oper t y

owner ) , and anot her of Ber r í os' s compani es, Agr o Mont el l ano, I nc. 9

The l ease i ndi cat ed t hat Cr i ader o La Gl or i a was l easi ng t he l and

and st abl es ( al ong wi t h some ot her f aci l i t i es) i n or der t o

" [ m] anage a st abl e l easi ng busi ness f or hor ses. "

Thus, when Ri ver a t ook her t umbl e on J ul y 4, 2009,

Cr i ader o La Gl or i a' s hor se boar di ng busi ness had no i nt er est at

al l i n Pasi ón' s hor seback r ent al busi ness. Al so, si nce Pasi ón

owned i t s own horses, Pasi ón di d not r ent out any of t he ones

boar ded i n Cr i ader o La Gl or i a' s 108 st abl es.

I n t he l at e summer or ear l y f al l of 2009, Cal der ón

f i gur ed out t hat Pasi ón coul d no l onger af f or d t o st ay i n busi ness

because i t was cost i ng hi m more money t o f eed hi s hor ses t han he

was br i ngi ng i n. So, and wi t h Ber r í os' s appr oval , Cal der ón of f er ed

t o sel l hi s hor se r ent i ng and t our i ng busi ness t o Vél ez. Vél ez

agr eed, and by t he end of November 2009 t he t r ansact i on was

compl et e.

To f ur t her compl i cat e t hi ngs, on J ul y 4, 2009, Madr i gal ,

I nc. had a non- horse- based busi ness operat i ng on t he pr emi ses.

Rest aur ant e El Est r i bo ( whi ch was separ at e f r om Madr i gal , I nc. ,

Pasi ón, and Cr i ader o La Gl or i a) , oper at ed a r est aur ant t her e. And

9 Si mi l ar t o Madr i gal , I nc. ' s l ease wi t h Pasi ón, Ber r í ossi gned t hi s one as Agr o Mont el l ano, I nc. ' s " Execut i ve Pr esi dent . "



- 13 -

t her e' s yet another company we have t o i dent i f y, I nt egr and

Assurance Company. I nt egr and wr ot e a si ngl e gener al l i abi l i t y

pol i cy t hat cover ed Madr i gal , I nc. , Pasi ón, and Cr i ader o La Gl or i a,

and whi ch was ef f ect i ve on t he dat e of Ri ver a' s acci dent . Ber r í os,

t hr ough Madr i gal , I nc. pai d f or t he pol i cy, and t he ot her

cor por at i ons oper at i ng at Madr i gal , I nc. ' s pr oper t y r ei mbur sed hi m

f or t hei r shar e of t he pr emi um.

Ul t i mat el y, t he pl ai nt i f f s br ought sui t agai nst al l of

t he i ndi vi dual s and compani es we have j ust ment i oned, but t hey di d

not sue t hem al l r i ght of f t he bat . The t r avel of t hi s case

t hr ough t he st at e and f eder al cour t syst ems i s cr i t i cal t o our

anal ysi s of t he par t i es' st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons ar gument s. Thus,

we must gi ve speci al at t ent i on t o t he dates on whi ch var i ous

par t i es wer e br ought i nt o t he l i t i gat i on. Our r undown i s based on

t est i mony and exhi bi t s i nt r oduced at t r i al , as t he st at ut e of

l i mi t at i ons was a hot l y- cont est ed i ssue t her e, and each si de cal l ed

wi t nesses and i nt r oduced evi dence speaki ng t o i t .

2. State Court Proceedings

The pl ai nt i f f s r et ai ned At t or ney Fr anci sco Tor r es Dí az

( "At t or ney Dí az" ) t o r epr esent t hem. On J une 11, 2010, wi t hi n t he

one- year st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons, t he pl ai nt i f f s i ni t i al l y f i l ed

sui t i n Puer t o Ri co st at e cour t agai nst Ber r í os and Madr i gal , I nc.

- - t he t wo par t i es At t or ney Dí az had i dent i f i ed i n hi s r esear ch as

bei ng pot ent i al l y l i abl e. Ri ver a made a per sonal i nj ur y cl ai m,



- 14 -

whi l e her husband' s was f or l oss of consor t i um. 10 Ber r í os' s

per sonal l awyer , Yeseni a Ramos Tal aver a ( "At t orney Ramos") ,

i ni t i al l y def ended bot h Ber r í os and Madr i gal , I nc. i n st at e cour t .

The pl ai nt i f f s ser ved wr i t t en i nt er r ogator i es on J anuar y

1, 2011. Sever al wer e geared t owards i dent i f yi ng t he name of t he

i ndi vi dual t hat owned t he horseback r i di ng busi ness oper at ed on

Madr i gal , I nc. ' s pr oper t y. Ot her s sought di scl osur e of t he nat ur e

of t he r el at i onshi p bet ween t he hor seback r i di ng busi ness and

Madr i gal , I nc.

I n ear l y Febr uar y of 2011 - - bef or e t he def endant s

answer ed t he i nt er r ogat or i es - - t he par t i es t hen i n t he case

( pl ai nt i f f s Ri ver a and her husband Her nández, and def endant s

Ber r í os and Madr i gal , I nc. ) j oi nt l y f i l ed i n Puer t o Ri co super i or

cour t a document known as a Case Management Repor t ( "Repor t " ) .

Thi s Repor t i s made i n accor dance wi t h Rul e 37. 1 of Puer t o Ri co' s

Rul es of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e whi ch, t he par t i es t el l us, i s t he "l ocal

l aw equi val ent " of Fed. R. Ci v. P. 16. The Repor t essent i al l y set

f or t h a j oi nt di scover y pl an, and was si gned by At t orney Ramos as

10 The par t i es have not i ncl uded a copy of t he act ual st at ecour t compl ai nt i n t hei r j oi nt appendi x. As such, our descr i pt i onof i t i s based on t he par t i es' r epr esent at i ons r at her t han a r evi ewof t he document i t sel f .



- 15 -

counsel f or Ber r í os and Madr i gal , I nc. , and At t or ney Dí az f or t he

pl ai nt i f f s. 11

The Repor t descr i bed t he di scover y st i l l t o be

compl et ed, i dent i f i ed par t i cul ar document s r equi r ed by each si de

as par t of i t s case, and named var i ous i ndi vi dual s t he par t i es

ant i ci pat ed deposi ng. The Repor t i ndi cat ed t he answer s t o t he

pl ai nt i f f s' i nt er r ogat or i es r emai ned out st andi ng. I t al so

r epr esent ed t hat t he l ease agr eement " [ b] etween Def endant s and the

hor se r ent al oper at or " was " i n possessi on of t he [ d] ef endant s" and

t hat t he deadl i ne t o del i ver i t t o t he pl ai nt i f f s was Apr i l 11,

2011. The def endant s di d not , however , speci f i cal l y i dent i f y

Cal der ón or Pasi ón as t he hor se rent al oper at or i n Repor t .

At t orney Ramos ser ved her cl i ent s' answer s t o t he

pl ai nt i f f s' i nt er r ogat or i es on Mar ch 7, 2011. Ber r í os had answer ed

t hem and si gned i n hi s "per sonal capaci t y and as pr esi dent of "

Madr i gal , I nc. The answer s t wi ce i dent i f i ed "Ger ar do Cal der ón" as

t he owner of t he hor se r ent al busi ness. Ber r í os f ur t her st at ed

t here was a l ease agr eement bet ween Madr i gal , I nc. and Cal derón' s

busi ness, and t hat he' d at t ached a copy of i t t o the answer s. 12

11 I n t hi s r egar d, t he Repor t appear s t o be a cl ose anal og t ot he wr i t t en di scover y pl an descri bed i n Fed. R. Ci v. P. 26( f ) .

12 Thi s r epr esent at i on l ed t o a di sput e at t r i al , whi ch wewi l l di scuss i n mor e det ai l l at er . For now, i t ' s enough t o knowt hat t he def endant s i nsi st ed t hey' d pr oduced t he l ease bet weenMadr i gal , I nc. and Pasi ón i n ef f ect on t he dat e of Ri ver a' sacci dent , whi l e t he pl ai nt i f f s mai nt ai ned t hat what was act ual l y



- 16 -

The wr i t t en answer di d not , however , speci f i cal l y ment i on t he name

of Cal der ón' s busi ness ( Pasi ón) , and i t f ur t her st at ed t hat Ber r í os

di d not know Cal der ón' s addr ess.

The pl ai nt i f f s amended t hei r st at e cour t compl ai nt on

August 30, 2011 t o add Madr i gal , I nc. ' s and Ber r í os' s l i abi l i t y

i nsur er , I nt egr and, as an addi t i onal def endant . 13 The amended

compl ai nt di d not asser t any cl ai ms agai nst Pasi ón, Cal der ón,

Vél ez, or Cr i ader o La Gl or i a. At some poi nt af t er t he i nsur ance

company was added, Ber r í os' s per sonal l awyer , At t orney Ramos,

wi t hdr ew and new def ense counsel , Eduardo Cobi an- Roi g ( "At t orney

Cobi an" ) ent er ed.

Di scover y cont i nued, and t he pl ai nt i f f s deposed Ber r í os

i n Oct ober 2011. At t orney Cobi an r epr esent ed t he def endant s at

t he deposi t i on. Ber r í os t est i f i ed - - usi ng t he pr esent t ense - -

t hat Vél ez, t hr ough hi s company Cr i ader o La Gl or i a, r ent s t he

st abl es at Madr i gal , I nc. ' s ranch. When pl ai nt i f f s' counsel asked

Ber r í os, "Who i s t he owner of Cent r o Ecuest r e Madr i gal , I nc. ?"

at t ached was a copy of t he l ease bet ween Agr o Mont el l ano, I nc.( anot her of Ber r í os' s cor por at i ons) and Cr i ader o La Gl or i a,execut ed by Vél ez. Assumi ng t he pl ai nt i f f s ar e cor r ect , f r om al lt hat appear s i n the record they made no at t empt t o f ol l ow up wi t hAt t or ney Ramos about why she had produced a cont r act t hat di d notso much as ment i on Cal der ón.

13 Remember , under t he t hen- exi st i ng l aw, t he t i mel y f i l i ngof a compl ai nt agai nst one j oi nt t or t f easor aut omat i cal l y t ol l edt he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons wi t h r espect t o al l ot her j oi ntt or t f easor s. See n. 4, supr a.



- 17 -

Ber r í os answer ed ( i ncor r ect l y, we mi ght add) : "Cent r o Ecuest r e

Madr i gal I nc. That was oper at ed bef or e um . . . Ger ar do

Cal der ón. "14 Pl ai nt i f f s' counsel di d not pose any f ol l ow- up

quest i ons about Cal der ón' s i nvol vement at t he pr oper t y, nor di d he

i nqui r e who Cal der ón i s or ask about t he t i mef r ame dur i ng whi ch

Cal der ón had a busi ness r el at i onshi p wi t h Madr i gal , I nc.

A l i t t l e l at er i n hi s deposi t i on, Ber r í os test i f i ed

( agai n i ncor r ect l y) t hat Cr i ader o La Gl or i a oper at ed t he hor se

r ent al busi ness on t he dat e of Ri ver a' s acci dent . Thi s st at ement ,

t he par t i es now agr ee, was i ncor r ect - - on J ul y 4, 2009, Vél ez' s

Cr i ader o La Gl or i a oper at ed t he boar di ng busi ness, whi l e

Cal der ón' s company Pasi ón r an t he hor se r ent al busi ness. Yet , no

one appears t o have pi cked up on t hi s er r or at t he t i me i t was

made.

Cal derón' s name came up one mor e t i me at t he Oct ober

2011 deposi t i on. Al t hough t he cont ext of how t hi s came about i sn' t

qui t e cl ear , i t seems t hat pl ai nt i f f s' counsel ( At t or ney Dí az) was

of f handedl y t el l i ng Ber r í os about a t i me when he hi msel f had gone

t o Madr i gal , I nc. t o r i de hor ses and managed t o l ose a set of car

keys. The f ol l owi ng exchange t ook pl ace:

Q. [ by At t y. Dí az] Yes, I l ost one of t hosekeys t here and I l ear ned how much t hey cost .Um . . . Wel l . . .

14 Thi s quest i on r ef er r ed t o Madr i gal , I nc. , whi ch no onedi sput es Ber r í os hi msel f owned.



- 18 -

A. [ by Ber r í os] I t hi nk t hat was when. . . wheni t was Ger ardo. [ 15]

Q. No t hat was bef or e, t hat was bef ore.

A. Yes, yes.

Q. I ' m t al ki ng about 2006, 2005 back t hen.

Agai n, no one asked who Gerardo i s or posed any f ol l ow- up quest i ons

about hi s i nvol vement on the pr oper t y.

Thus, at t he end of Ber r í os' s deposi t i on, t he subst ance

of hi s t est i mony r egardi ng t wo f act s was wr ong: not onl y di d he

say that t hat Cr i ader o La Gl or i a ( r at her t han Pasi ón) oper at ed t he

hor se r ent al busi ness on J ul y 4, 2009, but he al so t est i f i ed t hat

Ger ardo Cal der ón had r un Madr i gal , I nc. - - Ber r í os' s own company

- - at some poi nt i n t he past . The r ecor d di scl oses no ef f or t f r om

anyone on ei t her si de t o pr obe any i nconsi st enci es or t o cl ear up

ei t her mi sst at ement .

The pl ai nt i f f s vol unt ar i l y di smi ssed t hei r compl ai nt

wi t hout pr ej udi ce i n Apr i l 2012, ost ensi bl y because t hey had moved

t o Nebr aska. As non- r esi dent s of Puer t o Ri co, i f t hey cont i nued

t o l i t i gat e i n st at e cour t , t he pl ai nt i f f s coul d have been r equi r ed

t o put up a bond t o pay cost s shoul d t hey l ose t he case. They di d

not j oi n ( or seek to j oi n) Cal der ón, Pasi ón, Cr i ader o La Gl or i a,

or Vél ez bef or e di smi ssi ng t he st at e cour t compl ai nt .

15 Recal l t hat Ger ar do i s Cal der ón' s f i r st name.



- 19 -

3. The Federal Case

On Oct ober 11, 2012, al most exact l y one year af t er

Ber r í os' s deposi t i on and si x mont hs af t er t hey di smi ssed t hei r

st at e cour t compl ai nt , t he pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed a per sonal i nj ur y

act i on gr ounded on di ver si t y i n t he f eder al di st r i ct cour t i n

Puer t o Ri co. 16 The f ederal compl ai nt cont ai ned t he same

subst ant i ve al l egat i ons f r om st at e cour t , but i t br ought i n a f ew

new def endant s. I n t ot al , t he named def endant s wer e Ber r í os; hi s

wi f e I r ma Sar a Casi l l as ( "Casi l l as") ; t he "conj ugal par t ner shi p

composed by" Ber r í os and Casi l l as; Madr i gal , I nc. ; Agr o

Mont el l ano, I nc. ; Cr i ader o La Gl or i a; Vél ez; and I nt egr and. The

pl ai nt i f f s amended t hei r compl ai nt as- of - r i ght f ewer t han t went y-

one days l at er , see Fed. R. Ci v. P. 15( a) ( 1) ( descr i bi ng when a

par t y may amend i t s pl eadi ng wi t hout l eave of cour t ) , but st i l l

di d not asser t cl ai ms agai nst Cal der ón or Pasi ón. And al ong wi t h

t he change i n cour t came a change i n pl ai nt i f f s' counsel , wi t h

16 The or i gi nal def endant s - - Ber r í os and Madr i gal , I nc. - -do not cont end t hat t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons bar s t he f eder alcompl ai nt agai nst t hem. Thi s i s because Puer t o Ri co l aw cont ai nsa "r est ar t r ul e" t hat gi ves a pl ai nt i f f one year f r om t he dat e ofa di smi ssal wi t hout pr ej udi ce t o re- f i l e an act i on agai nst any andal l def endant s t hat had been t i mel y j oi ned. Rodr í guez v. SuzukiMot or Cor p. , 570 F. 3d 402, 408 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( "The usual r ul eunder Puer t o Ri co l aw i s t hat t he f i l i ng of a j udi ci al acti on t ol l st hat st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons and, i f t he act i on i s di smi ssed wi t houtpr ej udi ce, t he l i mi t at i ons per i od i s r eset and st ar t s t o r un agai nf r om t hat dat e. ") . As we not ed ear l i er , t he i ni t i al st at e cour tcompl ai nt agai nst Ber r í os and Madr i gal , I nc. was t i mel y.



- 20 -

At t or ney J osé Ubar r i ( "At t or ney Ubar r i " ) t aki ng over f r omAt t or ney

Dí az. At t orney Cobi an cont i nued t o r epr esent al l t he named

def endant s i n f eder al cour t . 17

Pur suant t o Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 26( a) ( 1) ,

t he def endant s ser ved t hei r I ni t i al Di scl osur es on J anuar y 30,

2013. I n accor dance wi t h t hat Rul e, t he def endant s wer e r equi r ed

t o di scl ose t he name "of each i ndi vi dual l i kel y t o have

di scover abl e i nf or mat i on - - al ong wi t h t he subj ect s of t hat

i nf or mat i on - - t hat t he [ def endant s] may use t o suppor t [ t hei r ]

cl ai ms or def enses . . . . " Fed. R. Ci v. P. 26( a) ( 1) ( A) ( i ) .

The def endant s' r esponse i ncl uded t he f ol l owi ng:

"Ger ardo Cal der ón Lozano - - Owner and admi ni st r ator of t he

hor seback r i di ng busi ness i n Haci enda Madr i gal , at t he t i me of t he

i nci dent al l eged i n t he compl ai nt . " The def endant s al so i ndi cat ed

t hey woul d r el y on t he l ease agr eement between Madr i gal , I nc. and

Pasi ón t o suppor t t hei r def enses. I t was at t hi s t i me, t he

pl ai nt i f f s cl ai m, t hat t he def endant s f i r st pr oduced Pasi ón' s

l ease and f i r st i dent i f i ed Cal der ón as t he owner of t he hor se

r ent al busi ness.

Two weeks l at er , on Febr uary 15, 2013, t he pl ai nt i f f s

moved f or l eave t o f i l e a Second Amended Compl ai nt . Thi s t i me

17 At t or neys Ubar r i and Cobi an al so repr esent t he par t i es i nt hi s appeal .



- 21 -

t hey want ed t o name Pasi ón and Cal derón as addi t i onal def endant s. 18

The pl ai nt i f f s di d not make any ar gument i n t hei r mot i on gear ed

speci f i cal l y t owar ds t ol l i ng t he one- year st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons.

I nst ead, t hey sai d they' d been unawar e of Cal der ón' s owner shi p of

t he hor seback r i di ng busi ness and of t he cont r act bet ween Madr i gal ,

I nc. and Pasi ón unt i l t he def endant s ser ved t hei r Rul e 26( a) ( 1)

di scl osur es.

The exi st i ng def endant s had unt i l Mar ch 4 t o f i l e an

obj ect i on t o t he pl ai nt i f f s' mot i on t o amend. But we do not know

whet her or how t hey woul d have responded t o t hat mot i on because

t he di st r i ct j udge, by a docket or der and wi t hout expl anat i on,

al l owed t he mot i on t o amend on Februar y 22, 2013.

Ther eaf t er , t he pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed t hei r Second Amended

Compl ai nt ( "Compl ai nt " ) on Febr uary 25, 2013. The Compl ai nt

appear s t o r ef l ect some cont i nui ng uncer t ai nt y on t he pl ai nt i f f s'

par t about j ust who had put on t he hor seback r i di ng t our . For

exampl e, t he Compl ai nt al l eges t hat Cal der ón, "al ong wi t h Pasi ón

Ecuest r e, and/ or El Est r i bo [ t he r est aur ant ] and/ or Edgar do Vél ez

and/ or Cr i ader o La Gl or i a oper at ed t he hor seback r i di ng busi ness

at Haci enda Madr i gal under an agr eement wi t h [ Ber r í os] and [ Agr o

Mont el l ano, I nc. ] . " The Compl ai nt went on t o al l ege t hat Pasi ón

( al ong wi t h al l t hese ot her def endant s) negl i gent l y caused

18 They al so sought t o add t he r est aur ant oper at i ng onMadr i gal , I nc. ' s pr oper t y, Rest aur ant e El Est r i bo, I nc.



- 22 -

Ri ver a' s i nj ur i es thr ough f ai l i ng t o pr oper l y sel ect, t r ai n, and

super vi se t he t our gui des. The Compl ai nt al so set f or t h a st r i ct

l i abi l i t y t heor y agai nst Madr i gal , I nc. , Cal der ón, and Pasi ón

pur suant t o Ar t i cl e 1805 of t he Puer t o Ri co Ci vi l Code, P. R. Laws

Ann. t i t . 31, § 5144. 19

Febr uary 25, 2013, t he day Cal der ón and Pasi ón wer e f i r st

br ought i nt o t he case, i s mor e t han t hr ee- and- a- hal f year s af t er

Ri ver a' s J ul y 4, 2009 i nj ur y. Thi s posed a pot ent i al pr obl em f or

t he pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai ms agai nst t hem i n l i ght of t he one- year

st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons. I ndeed, Cal der ón and Pasi ón soon sought

summar y j udgment f or exact l y t hat r eason. They ar gued t he case

shoul d not go to a j ur y because t he pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai ms are t i me-

bar r ed and t hat t he l i mi t at i ons per i od cannot be t ol l ed because

t he pl ai nt i f f s f ai l ed t o di l i gent l y wor k t o l ear n t he i dent i t y and

i mpor t ance of Cal der ón and Pasi ón.

The di st r i ct j udge deni ed t he mot i on i n a br i ef wr i t t en

or der . He st at ed f i r st t hat " [ e] vi dence concer ni ng t he name and

i dent i t y of t he cor r ect par t i es was not made appar ent unt i l Oct ober

2012. " So, t he j udge r ul ed, t he pl ai nt i f f s' Febr uar y 2013 "mot i on

19 Thi s sect i on pr ovi des, "[ t ] he possessor of an ani mal , ort he one who uses t he same, i s l i abl e f or t he damages i t may cause,even when sai d ani mal shoul d escape f r om hi m or st r ay. Thi sl i abi l i t y shal l cease onl y i n case t he damage shoul d ar i se f r omf orce maj eur e or f r omt he f aul t of t he per son who may have suf f er edi t . " P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 31, § 5144.



- 23 -

t o j oi n Pasi ón Ecuest r e as a par t y has occur r ed wi t hi n one year of

t hat t i me and i s wel l t aken. " The j udge went on, st at i ng t hat

summar y j udgment woul d be deni ed because " [ d] i sput ed mat er i al

f act s r emai n concer ni ng t he r esponsi bi l i t y and r ol e of each

def endant i n t hi s case. "

The def endant s f i l ed a mot i on f or r econsi derat i on, whi ch

t he di st r i ct j udge deni ed. He wr ot e i n anot her shor t or der t hat

he deni ed t he "or i gi nal [ summary j udgment ] mot i on because t he

pl ai nt i f f s wi l l have an oppor t uni t y at t r i al t o pr esent evi dence

of t hei r di l i gence. " At t hi s poi nt i n t he case, t he di st r i ct j udge

evi dent l y vi ewed t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons i ssue as pr esent i ng a

j ur y quest i on.

4. Trial

Not sur pr i si ngl y, Madr i gal , I nc. ' s and Cal der ón' s

st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons def ense was a hot l y- cont est ed i ssue at

t r i al . Awar e of t hei r bur den t o demonst r at e gr ounds f or t ol l i ng

t he l i mi t at i ons per i od, t he pl ai nt i f f s put on evi dence of t hei r

own di l i gence i n seeki ng t o i dent i f y and sue Pasi ón and Cal der ón.

Fi r st up was Ri ver a' s husband, Her nández. I n addi t i on

t o t est i f yi ng about how t he acci dent occur r ed, he t ol d t he j ur y

about t hei r ef f or t s t o i dent i f y and sue Pasi ón and Cal der ón. He

t est i f i ed t hat af t er he and hi s wi f e f i l ed t hei r l awsui t i n st at e

cour t , t he i ni t i al def endant s ( Ber r í os and Madr i gal , I nc. )

quest i oned whet her he or hi s wi f e had even been on t he premi ses on



- 24 -

J ul y 4, 2009. So Her nández asked hi s f r i end, who had pai d f or t he

r i de, t o gi ve hi m a copy of a r ecei pt f or t hat day. Her nández' s

f r i end ended up emai l i ng hi m a copy of a cr edi t car d st at ement

showi ng " t he dat e t hat i ndi cat ed we had been t her e" [ i . e. ,

Madr i gal , I nc. ' s r anch] and t he char ge f or t he hor se r ent al . Per

Her nández, t he st at ement showed t he "name" of t he company t hat put

on t he r i de, but he di dn' t r ecal l i t any l onger . 20

The pl ai nt i f f s cal l ed Ber r í os as par t of t hei r case i n

chi ef . He t est i f i ed t hat Madr i gal , I nc. has become wel l - known,

such t hat " [ e] ver ybody that goes hor seback r i di ng says, l et ' s go

t o Haci enda Madr i gal , " r at her t han t o Pasi ón or Cr i ader o La Gl or i a.

Ber r í os t ol d t he j ur y t hat back i n J ul y of 2009, Cal der ón owned

t he r ent al busi ness and oper ated i t under t he Pasi ón name, whi l e

at t he t i me of t r i al i t was bei ng r un by Vél ez t hr ough Cr i ader o La

Gl or i a. Ber r í os agr eed t hat bot h Cal der ón and Vél ez "us[ ed] t he

name Haci enda Madr i gal t o pr omot e t hei r hor se rent al

oper at i on[ s] . " He al so t est i f i ed t hat he obt ai ned i nsur ance f or

Madr i gal , I nc. and had Pasi ón and Cr i ader o La Gl or i a named as

i nsured ent i t i es on t he pol i cy, and t hat each company woul d pay

hi m i t s cor r espondi ng shar e of t he pol i cy pr emi um.

20 A copy of t he credi t card st atement ( whi ch t he def endant ssubmi t t ed i n connect i on wi t h t hei r summar y j udgment mot i on) showsa J ul y 4, 2009 t r ansact i on wi t h Pasi ón.



- 25 -

The pl ai nt i f f s t hen cal l ed At t or ney Dí az, t he l awyer who

had r epr esent ed t hem i n st at e cour t . Dí az t est i f i ed about t he

st eps he t ook t o i dent i f y pot ent i al def endant s bef or e he f i l ed t he

compl ai nt . He f i gur ed out t hat t he f ar m' s name was Madr i gal , I nc.

and t hat i t was owned by Ber r í os, so he f i l ed t he st at e cour t

compl ai nt agai nst t hose t wo. Af t er f i l i ng t he compl ai nt , he ser ved

i nt er r ogat or i es on t he def endant s, but t he answers made no ment i on

of Pasi ón or , f or t hat mat t er , Cr i ader o La Gl or i a. He di d admi t ,

however , t hat t he def endant s i dent i f i ed Cal der ón as someone t hat

may have knowl edge of f act s r el evant t o t he compl ai nt .

Never t hel ess, he sai d t hat t he def endant s at t ached t o thei r answer s

a copy of t he J une 1, 2009 cont r act bet ween Agr o Mont el l ano, I nc.

and Cr i ader o La Gl or i a. Per hi s t est i mony, t he def endant s never

pr oduced to hi m a copy of t he cont r act bet ween Madr i gal , I nc. and

Pasi ón f or t he hor seback r i di ng busi ness.

I n t he mi ddl e of At t or ney Dí az' s t est i mony, t he j udge

announced t hat t he cour t woul d r ecess f or l unch. Af t er sendi ng

t he j ur y out , he had t he f ol l owi ng exchange wi t h t he at t or neys:

The Cour t : Counsel , don' t go, because I wantt o di scuss somet hi ng her e. I t i s pr et t yobvi ous t o me, i t i s pret t y obvi ous t o me t hat

t he answer s t o t hose i nt er r ogat or i es f ai l t odi scl ose ext r emel y i mpor t ant i nf or mat i on t hatwas i n the hands of def endant s.

[ Pl ai nt i f f s ' Counsel ] : I ' msor r y, Your Honor ?

The Cour t : Those answer s, f r om what I ' vehear d up t o now . . . f ai l t o di scl ose



- 26 -

ext r emel y i mpor t ant i nf ormat i on t hat was knownt o def endant s . . . . Whet her i t was onaccount of bad f ai t h, . . . negl i gence,whet her i t was t hat t he l awyer [ At t or neyRamos] di d not do her j ob cor r ect l y i nf i gur i ng out t he answer s, whet her i t was t hatt he Cobi an l aw f i r m di d not pr ocur e anyaddi t i onal i nf or mat i on, I don' t know and Idon' t car e.

But I ' m t el l i ng you r i ght now t hat t he wayt hi s l ooks up t o now, you have no St atut e ofLi mi t at i ons def ense. I s t hat cl ear ?

[ Def ense Counsel ] : I t ' s cl ear , Your Honor .

The Cour t : Because I ' m not goi ng t o al l owt hat her e. I s t hat cl ear ?

[ Def ense Counsel ] : Wel l - -

The Cour t : I f you mess ar ound wi t h t he t r ut hi n t he answer t o i nt er r ogat or y, you pay t heconsequence. The consequence i s t hat t heCompl ai nt may be f i l ed i n t i me. Okay.

I n r esponse, def ense counsel i ndi cat ed t he def endant s'

st at e cour t l awyer , At t or ney Ramos, woul d test i f y t hat she

per sonal l y del i ver ed a copy of t he Madr i gal , I nc. - Pasi ón cont r act

t o pl ai nt i f f s' counsel bef or e answer i ng t he compl ai nt , and t hen

l at er at t ached a copy of t hat cont r act t o her cl i ent s' answer s t o

i nt er r ogat or i es. The di st r i ct j udge' s vi ew, t hough, was t hat t he

def endant s' answer s shoul d have expl i ci t l y st at ed t hat Cal der ón

"i s r el at ed t o a cor por at i on known as Pasi ón Ecuest r e, I nc. , " but

" t hi s i nf or mat i on was not di scl osed unt i l 2011. " The j udge sai d

" [ t ] her e must be a consequence when you scr ew ar ound wi t h answer s



- 27 -

t o i nt er r ogator i es, " and he warned def ense counsel t hat he was

"advanci ng t o [ hi m] what ' s comi ng. "

Af t er l unch, At t orney Dí az resumed hi s t est i mony and

descr i bed how he asked Ber r í os at hi s deposi t i on about who ran t he

hor se r ent al busi ness. At t or ney Dí az t ol d t he j ur y t hat Ber r í os

i ndi cat ed - - mor e t han once - - t hat Cr i ader o La Gl or i a had been

r unni ng i t when Ri ver a was i nj ur ed. At t or ney Dí az al so deni ed

t hat t he def endant s' f i r st l awyer , At t or ney Ramos, del i ver ed a

copy of t he cont r act bet ween Madr i gal , I nc. and Pasi ón t o hi m.

And he f ur t her t est i f i ed t hat , despi t e aski ng f or t hem, he was

never gi ven a copy of Pasi ón' s l ease or a copy of t he Rel ease

Ri ver a si gned bef or e goi ng on her r i de. At t or ney Dí az expl ai ned

t hat he di d not f i l e sui t agai nst Cal der ón i n st at e cour t because

he was not "cer t ai n" who was r unni ng t he horse r ent al busi ness i n

J ul y of 2009, and he di d not want t o asser t cl ai ms agai nst anyone

who mi ght have no l i abi l i t y f or Ri ver a' s i nj ur i es.

Once t he pl ai nt i f f s f i ni shed put t i ng on t hei r case i n

chi ef , whi ch i ncl uded t he above- descr i bed st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons

evi dence, i t was t he def endant s' t ur n t o pr esent t hei r def ense.

Fi r st , Cal der ón t ook t he st and and t est i f i ed t hat he di d r un Pasi ón

i n J ul y of 2009, but t hat he sol d t he ent i r e busi ness t o Vél ez a

f ew mont hs af t er Ri ver a' s i nj ur y. On cr oss- exami nat i on, he

acknowl edged t hat he made use of Madr i gal , I nc. ' s name, wi t h no

obj ect i on f r om Ber r í os, t o pr omot e hi s busi ness. He di d t hi s



- 28 -

because Madr i gal , I nc. was wel l - known whi l e "Pasi ón Ecuest r e was

a cor por at e name that nobody knew. "

The def endant s al so cal l ed t hei r l awyer f r om t he st at e

cour t act i on, At t or ney Ramos. She t est i f i ed t hat Ber r í os was a

cl i ent f or whomshe had done "a l ot of cont r act s . . . and cor por at e

l aw, " so she agr eed t o t ake on t he mat t er even t hough she does not

handl e t or t cases. At t or ney Ramos t ol d t he j ur y t hat she

per sonal l y went t o At t or ney Dí az' s of f i ce and del i ver ed a copy of

t he cont r act bet ween Madr i gal , I nc. and Pasi ón wi t h t he expect at i on

t hat he woul d dr op t he cl ai ms agai nst Ber r í os and Madr i gal , I nc.

When t hat di dn' t happen, At t orney Ramos t est i f i ed t hat she agai n

pr oduced a copy of t he Pasi ón cont r act al ong wi t h her cl i ent s'

answer s t o i nt er r ogat or i es. She expl ai ned t hat she agr eed t o t he

wordi ng i n t he Repor t st at i ng t hat t he def endant s woul d pr oduce

t he cont r act ( as opposed t o, had al r eady pr oduced i t ) because she

"di dn' t mi nd" sendi ng al ong anot her copy.

Af t er t he cl ose of evi dence, def ense counsel made a

coupl e of mot i ons t o t r y t o get var i ous def endant s out of t he case.

Fi r st , sayi ng t hat he want ed t o " si mpl i f y t he case f or

t he j ur y, " counsel r equest ed "a j udgment as a mat t er of l aw

di smi ssi ng al l t he def endant s t hat ar e not t he ent i t y Pasi ón

Ecuest r e" or t he i nsurance company, I nt egr and. Counsel di d more

t han j ust appeal t o t he j udge' s sense of pr act i cal i t y: he ar gued

t hat "i t ' s been est abl i shed t her e i s no evi dence i n t he r ecor d



- 29 -

t hat r el ates t hem" - - meani ng def endant s ot her t han Pasi ón and t he

i nsur er - - "wi t h t he r ent al busi ness. " He ur ged t he cour t t o

concl ude t hat t her e was no l egal basi s t o hol d any def endant apar t

f r om Pasi ón l i abl e f or Ri ver a' s i nj ur i es.

The di st r i ct j udge di d not ask t he pl ai nt i f f s what t hey

t hought about t he def ense mot i on. I nst ead, t he j udge' s r esponse

was, "I woul d say that at l east t he ent i t i es t hat appear i n t he

r el ease ar e t echni cal l y speaki ng i nvol ved one way or t he ot her . "

The Rel ease, r ecal l , l i st ed "Haci enda Madr i gal , Cent r o Ecuest r e

Madr i gal , I nc. , Pasi ón Ecuestr e, I nc. and i t s of f i cer s, di r ect or s,

manager s, agent s and r epr esent at i ves i n t hei r i ndi vi dual and

cor por at e capaci t i es . . . . "

The j udge went on t o, essent i al l y, opi ne t hat i t di dn' t

mat t er whi ch def endant s r emai ned i n t he case. Af t er al l , he sai d,

" t he t r ut h of t he mat t er i s t he evi dence i n t hi s case cent er s

basi cal l y upon t he hor se r ent i ng ent er pr i se, and doesn' t r eal l y

mat t er whether you have one or t en or [ t went y] or t hr ee

[ def endant s] , because i t ' s t he same i nsur ance event ual l y. " Thus,

"i f t he j ur y wer e t o f i nd i n f avor of pl ai nt i f f [ s] agai nst any one

of t hem, any one of t hem, t he deep pocket i s t he i nsurance company

. . . [ n] o mat t er how you l ook at i t . " I n sum, t he j udge cl ear l y

i ndi cat ed t hat he was not i ncl i ned t o di smi ss t he cl ai ms agai nst

Madr i gal , I nc. , Pasi ón, and t hei r of f i cer s or di r ector s, but t hat



- 30 -

he woul d l et t he ot her def endant s - - wi t h t he except i on of

I nt egr and - - out .

Def ense counsel next f ocused i n on Pasi ón and sai d t he

cl ai ms agai nst i t shoul d be di smi ssed because "[ t ] he case was not

br ought i n one year . " Thi s mot i on br ought t he st at ut e of

l i mi t at i ons i ssue t o a head. 21 "Ther e i s no way I ' m goi ng t o do

t hat , and I t ol d you t he reasons, " was t he j udge' s i mmedi at e

r esponse.

The j udge went on t o st at e t hat , "wi t hout enter i ng i nt o

cr edi bi l i t y i ssues" r egar di ng At t or neys Dí az and Ramos, he woul d

i nst ead r el y on t he (Puer t o Ri co Super i or Cour t Rul e 37. 1) Repor t

si gned by " [ b] oth l awyer s" t o concl ude t hat t he def endant s had not

pr oduced Pasi ón' s cont r act at t he ver y begi nni ng of t he l awsui t .

The j udge t ook t he Repor t ' s speci f i c wor di ng t hat t he l ease woul d

be pr oduced by a speci f i c dat e as an i ndi cat i on t hat i t had not

al r eady been t ur ned over t o t he pl ai nt i f f s. He f ur t her expr essed

hi s " vi ew . . . t hat i f Pasi ón Ecuest r e was not i ncl uded f r om t he

begi nni ng, i t wasn' t because of negl i gence or because of anythi ng

21 I t al so ensured that def ense counsel had sought j udgmentas a mat t er of l aw f or each and ever y def endant ( agai n, wi t h t heexcept i on of I nt egr and) . Wi t h r espect t o Cal der ón, t echni cal l ydef ense counsel di d not i nvoke a st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons def enseand onl y sought j udgement as a mat t er of l aw on t he gr ounds t hathe di d not per sonal l y oper at e t he hor se r ent al busi ness. Onappeal , however , t he pl ai nt i f f s do not ar gue t hat Cal der ón wai vedt he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons def ense as a r esul t of def ense counsel ' sf ai l ur e t o expl i ci t l y i nvoke t hi s def ense on hi s behal f whencounsel moved f or j udgment as a mat t er of l aw.



- 31 -

of t he sor t . I t was because t he l ooseness, i f you wi l l , t he

t r opi cal nat ur e of t he di scover y t hat was cr eat ed, was done i n

Super i or Cour t i n Caguas, al l owed t hat t o happen. "

The j udge concl uded t hat " [ t ] here i s no quest i on"

pl ai nt i f f s' counsel had been at t empt i ng t o i dent i f y and l ocat e t he

pr oper par t i es t o sue ( i . e. , Cal der ón and Pasi ón) , but "t he

di scover y bet r ayed hi m i n t hat sense, and he r el i ed on di scover y

t hat was i mpr oper . " The j udge made i t cl ear t hat he woul d consi der

no f ur t her ar gument on t he mat t er : "Thi s i s i t . Thi s i s f i ni shed.

You wi l l not convi nce me. I al r eady gave you a r ul i ng, and t hi s

i s i t . "

Af t er a r ecess, t he j udge r et ur ned t o t he def ense' s f i r st

mot i on f or j udgment as a mat t er of l aw - - t he one seeki ng t o

di smi ss everyone but Pasi ón - - and asked " [ a] r e we i n agr eement

t hat we shoul d gi ve t he j ur y a st r eaml i ned case r egar di ng par t i es?"

Def ense counsel r esponded, "Def endant s agr ee, Your Honor , "22 and

t he pl ai nt i f f s expr essed t hei r agr eement as wel l . The cour t

ent er ed a Par t i al J udgment f or mal l y di smi ssi ng al l cl ai ms agai nst

Vél ez, Ber r í os, Casi l l as and t he conj ugal par t ner shi p wi t h

Ber r í os, Agr o Mont el l ano, Cr i ader o La Gl or i a, and Rest aur ant e El

22 We do not i nt er pr et t he def endant s' agr eement wi t h t hedi st r i ct cour t ' s pr oposal t o "st r eaml i ne" t he case f or t he j ur y' sconveni ence as a wai ver of any of t he subst ant i ve def enses andar gument s t hey had j ust r ai sed.



- 32 -

Est r i bo. 23 Accor di ngl y, t he onl y def endant s l i st ed on t he ver di ct

f or m wer e the par t i es named i n t he Rel ease Ri ver a had si gned - -

Madr i gal , I nc. , Pasi ón, and Cal der ón.

The ver di ct f or m t he cour t chose t o submi t t o t he j ur y24

ef f ect i vel y t r eat ed t he t hr ee r emai ni ng def endant s as one ent i t y,

as i t di d not di f f er ent i at e bet ween t heor i es of l i abi l i t y agai nst

each. I nst ead, i t si mpl y asked whet her t he pl ai nt i f f s had pr oved

"t hat t he owner or possessor of t he hor se i s l i abl e, " but t he j ur y

was not asked t o det er mi ne whi ch of t he t hr ee def endant s qual i f i ed

as t he "owner or possessor . " And cont i nui ng t he t heme of l umpi ng

al l t hr ee t oget her , t he ver di ct f or m al so asked whet her f or ce

maj eur e "absol ve[ d] t he Def endant s of l i abi l i t y. " 25

23 The Par t i al J udgment mi st akenl y di smi ssed I nt egr and, butt he par t i es wor ked t hi s out af t er t r i al by amendi ng t he j udgement

t o l i st I nt egr and as a l i abl e def endant .24 The def endant s' pr oposed j ur y i nst r uct i ons separ at ed t he

def endant s out and pr ovi ded f or a separate ver di ct as t o each one,but t he di st r i ct j udge di d not adopt t hem.

25 The di st r i ct j udge' s wr i t t en i nst r ucti ons t o t he j ur yexpl ai ned t he concept of f or ce maj eur e i n t he f ol l owi ng way:

For ce maj eur e means a super i or f or ce or event ;an event t hat cannot be ant i ci pat ed orcont r ol l ed. The t er m i ncl udes bot h act s ofnat ur e, l i ke f l oods or hur r i canes, and al soact s of peopl e. I t means t hat i t becomesi mpossi bl e t o pr edi ct. I t i s t he r esul t of anevent or ef f ect t hat t he par t i es coul d nothave ant i ci pat ed or cont r ol l ed.

None of t he par t i es on appeal t akes i ssue wi t h t he di st r i ctcour t ' s f or mul at i on of f or ce maj eur e.



- 33 -

Def ense counsel t ook anot her st ab at get t i ng t he st at ut e

of l i mi t at i ons def ense t o t he j ur y by aski ng t he di st r i ct j udge t o

i nst r uct t he j ur y on i t . The j udge r ef used, sayi ng "I al r eady

deci ded on t he mat t er of l aw, St at ut e of Li mi t at i ons. So you

cannot ar gue t hat bef or e t he j ur y. " I n r esponse t o def ense

counsel ' s cont i nued at t empt s t o ar gue f or t he def ense, t he j udge

r ei t er at ed hi s posi t i on t hat "t he di scover y i n t hi s case woul d

have l ed any r easonabl e person t o be conf used who t he par t i es were

. . . . " Wi t h t hat , t he di st r i ct j udge consi der ed t he mat t er

"over . "

The j ur y r et ur ned a ver di ct f or t he pl ai nt i f f s, and t he

di st r i ct cour t ent er ed j udgment agai nst Madr i gal , I nc. , Pasi ón,

and Cal derón. Those def endant s t hen f i l ed a post - j udgment r enewed

mot i on f or j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. 26 Much of t he mot i on

r ehashed ar gument s made previ ousl y. These def endants once agai n

argued t hat t he uncont r over t ed evi dence demonst r at ed t hat onl y

Pasi ón oper at ed t he hor se rent al busi ness, meani ng t hat nei t her

Madr i gal , I nc. nor Cal der ón coul d be hel d l i abl e f or t he negl i gence

of Pasi ón' s empl oyees. And, l i ke t hey di d pr i or t o and at t r i al ,

t he def endant s ar gued t hat t he cl ai ms agai nst Pasi ón are bar r ed by

t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons. I n a new wr i nkl e, t he def endant s al so

26 I nt egr and, t hough at t hat poi nt di smi ssed f r om t he case, j oi ned t hi s mot i on.



- 34 -

sought t o appl y t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons ar gument t o Cal der ón

and I nt egr and, as t hei r pr ayer f or r el i ef sought di smi ssal of t he

"t ot al i t y of t he compl ai nt on st at ut e of l i mi t at i on[ s] gr ounds. "

Fi nal l y, t he def endant s t ol d t he j udge t hat even i f he di d not

agr ee t hat t hey wer e ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw, t hey

shoul d at t he ver y l east get a new t r i al on t he st at ut e of

l i mi t at i ons i ssue. 27

The di st r i ct j udge deni ed t he def endant s' r enewed mot i on

f or j udgment as a mat t er of l aw i n a docket order wi t hout

expl anat i on. Aggr i eved, t he def endant s f i l ed t hi s t i mel y appeal .

DISCUSSION

1. Pasión, Calderón, and the Statute of Limitations

Cal der ón and Pasi ón appeal t he di st r i ct j udge' s deni al

of t hei r mot i on f or j udgment as a mat t er of l aw i nvoki ng t he

stat ut e of l i mi t at i ons. 28 They say t he j udge deci ded t he i ssue - -

27 The def endant s al so sought a new t r i al on a speci f i c poi ntof Puer t o Ri co' s comparat i ve negl i gence l aw, but we don' t need t oget i nt o t hat as t he def endant s do not pr ess t he i ssue on appeal .

28 I nt egr and ar gues t hat i t , t oo, may t ake advant age of t hest at ut e of l i mi t at i ons because i t was not br ought i nt o t he caseunt i l t wo year s af t er Ri ver a' s acci dent . I nt egr and, however , f ai l st o acknowl edge or addr ess " t he Puer t o Ri co Supr eme Cour t ' sdet er mi nat i on t hat a sui t agai nst an i nsur er may be f i l ed up t oone year af t er j udgment i s ent er ed i n a sui t agai nst t he i nsur ed. " Tokyo Mar i ne and Fi r e I ns. Co. , Lt d. v. Per ez & Ci a. , De Puer t oRi co, I nc. , 142 F. 3d 1, 8 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) ( ci t i ng Bar r i ent os v.Gobi er no De La Capi t al , 97 D. P. R. 552, 576- 77 ( P. R. 1969) ) .Because I nt egr and acknowl edges t hat i t i nsured each of t hedef endant s agai nst whom j udgment was ent er ed, i t s st at ut e ofl i mi t at i ons def ense i s wi t hout mer i t .



- 35 -

er r oneousl y - - as a mat t er of l aw, and t hei r br i ef ext ensi vel y

engages on t hi s cl ai m of err or . The pl ai nt i f f s have a ver y

di f f er ent t ake on what t he j udge deci ded. On t hi s poi nt , t hey

sol el y ar gue i n t hei r appel l at e br i ef t hat t he di st r i ct j udge

bar r ed t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons def ense not as a mat t er of l aw

on t he mer i t s of t he mot i on, but as a sanct i on f or t he def endant s'

havi ng gone out of t hei r way t o hi de t he i dent i t i es of t he pr oper

def endant s t o keep t he pl ai nt i f f s f r om sui ng Pasi ón and Cal der ón

unt i l l ong af t er t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons had expi r ed. 29

29 Because t he def endant s ( appel l ant s her e) are t he ones whot ook an appeal , t hey f i l ed t he i ni t i al br i ef i n t hi s Cour t i naccor dance wi t h t he Feder al Rul es of Appel l at e Pr ocedur e. Thepl ai nt i f f s ( appel l ees her e) t hen f i l ed t hei r own br i ef , af t er whi cht he def endant s f i l ed a r epl y br i ef r espondi ng t o t he pl ai nt i f f s'ar gument s.

The def endant s' openi ng br i ef was pr emi sed ( and f ocused

ent i r el y on) t he not i on t hat t he di st r i ct j udge deci ded t he st at ut eof l i mi t at i ons i ssue as a mat t er of l aw. I t di d not even r ai set he possi bi l i t y t hat t he di st r i ct j udge mi ght have bar r ed t hedef ense as a sanct i on. I n t hei r r esponse br i ef , t he pl ai nt i f f snot onl y sai d t hat t he di st r i ct j udge sanct i oned t he def endant s,but t hey al so cl ai med t he def endant s wai ved any appel l at e ar gumentt hat t he sanct i on was i mpr oper si nce t hey di dn' t even ment i on t hei ssue i n t hei r openi ng br i ef . Accor di ng t o t he pl ai nt i f f s, eveni f t he def endant s ( as t hey i n f act di d) used t hei r f or t hcomi ngr epl y br i ef t o di scuss t he pr opr i et y of t he sanct i on, t hi s woul dbe t oo l i t t l e t oo l at e t o over come t he wai ver .

We have sai d t hat par t i es i n t he pl ai nt i f f s' posi t i on ar e"ent i t l ed t o r el y on t he cont ent of an appel l ant ' s br i ef f or t hescope of t he i ssues appeal ed, and [ an] appel l ant gener al l y may notpr eser ve a cl ai m mer el y by r ef er r i ng t o i t i n a r epl y br i ef or ator al ar gument . " Pi gnons S. A. de Mecani que v. Pol ar oi d Cor p. , 701F. 2d 1, 3 ( 1st Ci r . 1983) ; see al so Sandst r om v. ChemLawn Cor p. ,904 F. 2d 83, 87 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ( expr essi ng concer n i n a si t uat i oni n whi ch " t he appel l ee i s gi ven no f ai r chance t o r espond t o at heor y whi ch emer ges f or t he f i r st t i me i n t he appel l ant ' s r epl y



- 36 -

The par t i es' di sagreement about what happened i n t he

di st r i ct cour t compl i cat es our wor k as a r evi ewi ng cour t . And,

r egr et t abl y, t he r ecor d does not suppl y a r eady answer : each si de' s

char act er i zat i on of t he j udge' s act i ons f i nds at l east some suppor t

t her e.

We st ar t wi t h t he pl ai nt i f f s' suggest i on t hat t he j udge

st r uck t he def ense as a sanct i on. At t he summary j udgment st age,

t he di st r i ct j udge' s r evi ew of t he paper s l ed hi m t o concl ude t hat

t he def ense' s success ( or l ack t her eof ) was dependent upon t he

j ur y' s r esol ut i on of cont est ed f act s. Thi s i s an obvi ous

i ndi cat i on t hat t he j udge di d not bel i eve i t was appr opr i at e t o

r esol ve the quest i on as a mat t er of l aw i n l i ght of t he expect ed

evi dence at t r i al .

Then, i n t he mi dst of t r i al and i mmedi at el y af t er hear i ng

some of t he pl ai nt i f f s' evi dence about how t hey at t empt ed t o

i dent i f y t he r i ght par t i es t o sue (and bef or e the def endant s began

br i ef and t he cour t of appeal s i s l ef t wi t h but one si de of a t wo-si ded story") .

The def endant s' br i ef i ng does not of f end t hi s pr i nci pl e. Aswe di scuss i n det ai l her ei n, t he recor d does not make cl ear whet hert he di st r i ct j udge i mposed a sanct i on or made a l egal r ul i ng whenhe kept t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons def ense f r om goi ng t o t he j ur y. The pl ai nt i f f s, i n t hei r appel l at e br i ef , ar e t he ones who f r amedt he cour t ' s deci si on as t hat of a sanct i on or der . The def endant sappr opr i at el y used t hei r r epl y br i ef t o chal l enge t hi s asser t i on.See Hol mes v. Spencer , 685 F. 3d 51, 66 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( r ecogni zi ngt hat an appel l ant ' s r epl y br i ef may be "t he ear l i est poi nt when i t[ i s] l ogi cal t o" addr ess an ar gument r ai sed by an appel l ee i n i t sbr i ef ) . Accor di ngl y, we decl i ne t o make any f i ndi ng of wai ver .



- 37 -

cal l i ng t hei r own wi t nesses) , t he di st r i ct j udge sent t he j ur y t o

l unch and i nst r uct ed t he par t i es t o r emai n i n t he cour t r oom. He

pr oceeded t o character i ze t he def endant s as havi ng "mess[ ed]

around wi t h the t r ut h, " and "scr ewed ar ound wi t h answer s t o

i nt er r ogat or i es. " The j udge i nf or med t he def endant s that t hey

woul d "pay t he consequence" of t hei r act i ons and t hat he was "not

goi ng t o al l ow" t hem t o pr esent a st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons def ense.

He al so made i t abundant l y cl ear t hat he t hought t he def endant s

wer e r equi r ed t o speci f i cal l y i dent i f y Pasi ón i n r esponse t o t he

i nt er r ogat or i es ser ved on t hemi n t he st at e cour t case, and st at ed

i t was " pr et t y obvi ous" t o hi m t hat t he def endant s' answer s wer e

i nadequat e.

We are wel l - aware of t he danger s of t r yi ng t o gl ean t one

of voi ce and demeanor f r om a col d t r anscr i pt . Never t hel ess, t he

t i mi ng and wordi ng of t he j udge' s st atement s can r eadi l y and

r easonabl y be i nt er pr et ed as evi nci ng hi s di spl easur e wi t h t he

def endant s' conduct i n di scover y based on t he evi dence put on by

t he pl ai nt i f f s. Mor eover , by st at i ng "I ' m not goi ng t o al l ow" t he

def ense, t he j udge was speaki ng i n ter ms of maki ng a deci si on

wi t hi n hi s pur vi ew and up t o hi s di scr et i on as a t r i al j udge, as

opposed t o si mpl y appl yi ng Puer t o Ri co l aw on t ol l i ng t o t he

speci f i c f act s of t he case. Thus, t he r ecor d coul d be r ead t o

suppor t t he pl ai nt i f f s' asser t i on t hat upon hear i ng t he evi dence,



- 38 -

t he j udge f ound t hat t he def endant s engaged i n di scover y mi sconduct

and st r uck t hei r st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons def ense as a sanct i on.

Yet , t he def endant s' posi t i on t hat t he j udge r ul ed as a

mat t er of l aw i nst ead of i mposi ng a sanct i on i s not devoi d of

r ecor d suppor t ei t her . Fi r st , t hough t he di st r i ct j udge voi ced

hi s opi ni on at t r i al t hat Madr i gal , I nc. ' s and Ber r í os' s

i nt er r ogator y answer s shoul d have i dent i f i ed Pasi ón by name, t he

j udge never made an expl i ci t , on- t he- r ecor d f i ndi ng t hat any

def endant vi ol at ed a di scover y obl i gat i on or engaged i n

mi sconduct . I ndeed, he never ut t er ed t he word " sanct i on" dur i ng

or af t er t r i al . Gi ven t he amount of at t ent i on pai d t o t hi s i ssue

bot h at t r i al and post - ver di ct , i t woul d be l ogi cal t o expect t hat

i f t he j udge had i nt ended t o appl y a sanct i on, he woul d have sai d

so expl i ci t l y at some poi nt al ong t he way.

I t al so bear s ment i oni ng t hat t he di st r i ct j udge di d not

addr ess any of t he t est i moni al di scr epanci es or make any f i ndi ngs

r el at ed t o t he conduct of t he t r i al at t or neys' handl i ng of t hei r

di scover y obl i gat i ons. And he di d not make a f i ndi ng as t o whi ch

cont r act t he def endant s at t ached t o t hei r answer s t o

i nt er r ogat or i es. Fact ual f i ndi ngs on t hese i ssues, we bel i eve,

woul d l i kel y have been necessar y pr er equi si t es t o any ul t i mat e

f i ndi ng of bad f ai t h or di scover y mi sconduct .

Moreover , when t he j udge ref er enced " l oose" di scover y

pr act i ces i n Puer t o Ri co st at e cour t , he appear s t o have been



- 39 -

r ef er r i ng t o hi s per cept i on of t he way di scover y i s gener al l y

conduct ed t her e, r at her t han a cr i t i ci smspeci f i c t o t he def endant s

or At t or ney Ramos. And he al so sai d t he pl ai nt i f f s shoul d not be

penal i zed because of t he "t r opi cal nat ur e" of st at e cour t

di scover y. I ndeed, he opi ned t hat , t hanks t o " t he di scover y i n

t hi s case . . . any reasonabl e per son" woul d be conf used as t o who

t he pl ai nt i f f s shoul d have been sui ng gi ven t he mul t i pl i ci t y of

i ndi vi dual s and compani es pr ovi di ng ser vi ces at Madr i gal , I nc. ' s

pr oper t y. Thi s wor di ng cal l s t o mi nd not a sanct i on, but t he

pl ai nt i f f s' success i n meet i ng t hei r bur den t o est abl i sh t hat t hey

act ed as a r easonabl y di l i gent per son woul d i n or der t o t ol l t he

stat ut e of l i mi t at i ons.

Thus, we do not bel i eve t he j udge' s f ocus on t he par t i es'

mut ual conf usi on and hi s gener al i zed cr i t i que of di scover y

pr act i ces i n Puer t o Ri co st at e cour t ar e necessar i l y i ndi cat i ve of

an i nt ent t o sanct i on t he def endant s. On t he cont r ar y, t he j udge

expl i ci t l y st at ed af t er t he cl ose of evi dence t hat he had deci ded

"as a mat t er of l aw" not t o submi t t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons

def ense t o t he j ur y. Thi s l ast st at ement - - especi al l y consi der i ng

t hat t he j udge never sai d he was sanct i oni ng t he def endant s - -

l ends f ur t her r ecor d suppor t t o t he def endant s' vi ew t hat t he j udge

made a l egal r ul i ng t hat t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons shoul d be

tol l ed.



- 40 -

Put t i ng i t al l t oget her , we si mpl y cannot say wi t h any

conf i dence whet her t he j udge st r uck t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons

def ense as a sanct i on or r ul ed on t hat i ssue as a mat t er of l aw.

Comi ng down ei t her way woul d r equi r e us t o emphasi ze and r el y on

some of t he j udge' s wor ds, whi l e i gnor i ng and put t i ng t o one si de

ot her s. Guessi ng at what a di st r i ct j udge i nt ended t o do does not

st r i ke us as t he pr oper way t o go about deci di ng an appeal .

"As we have obser ved on several occasi ons, ' some

expl i cat i on of t he t r i al cour t ' s r easoni ng wi l l of t en pr ove

val uabl e t o bot h t he l i t i gant s and t o t he r evi ewi ng cour t . ' "

Fr anci s v. Goodman, 81 F. 3d 5, 8 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ( quot i ng Souza v.

Pi na, 53 F. 3d 423, 424 n. 4 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ) ( di scussi ng t he need

t o remand gi ven t he l ack of cl ar i t y as t o why t he di st r i ct cour t

concl uded t hat exer ci si ng di ver si t y j ur i sdi ct i on was pr oper ) .

Her e, because t he r ecor d on appeal can be f ai r l y read t o suppor t

each par t y' s di ver gent vi ew of what went on at t r i al , an

expl anat i on f r om t he di st r i ct cour t i s mor e t han val uabl e, i t i s

essent i al f or us t o conduct a meani ngf ul appel l at e r evi ew. Thi s

i s especi al l y so i f t he di st r i ct j udge i nt ended t o i mpose a

sanct i on f or di scover y mi sconduct . See Fi guer oa- Rui z v. Al egr i a,

905 F. 2d 545, 549 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ( hol di ng t hat a di st r i ct cour t

i s r equi r ed t o ar t i cul at e why i t i s i mposi ng a sanct i on "when t he

r eason f or t he deci si on i s not obvi ous or appar ent f r om t he

r ecord" ) ; see al so Navar r o- Ayal a v. Nunez, 968 F. 2d 1421, 1427 n. 5



- 41 -

( 1st Ci r . 1992) ( r ecogni zi ng t hat a di st r i ct cour t ' s speci f i c

f i ndi ngs " hel p us bet t er under st and why a par t i cul ar sanct i on has

been deemed appr opr i ate i n r espect t o a par t i cul ar i nst ance of

mi sconduct " ) .

Mor eover , a def i ni t i ve wor d f r om t he di st r i ct cour t

wi l l i mpr ove t he qual i t y of our ul t i mat e deci si on because i t wi l l

al l ow t he par t i es t o f ocus t hei r ar gument s not on what t hey thi nk

t he di st r i ct cour t di d, but whet her or not t he t r i al j udge' s

deci si on shoul d be af f i r med, r ever sed, or modi f i ed. Thus, "we

f eel i t necessary t o r emand t he case so t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

may r evi ew i t s deci si on[ ] " st r i ki ng t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons

def ense and "make known t o us i t s r easons" f or doi ng so. Anderson,

105 F. 3d at 769. 30

30 The par t i es seem t o agr ee t hat i f i n f act t he di st r i ct j udge sanct i oned t he def endant s, he di d so as a r esul t of t hedef endant s' conduct dur i ng di scover y i n Puer t o Ri co Super i orCour t . We ar e, of cour se, mi ndf ul of t he def endant s' ar gumentt hat a f eder al j udge l acks t he power t o sanct i on a par t y f orconduct occur r i ng i n a st at e cour t . See I n r e Lot hi an Oi l , I nc. ,531 F. App' x 428, 445 ( 5t h Ci r . 2013) ( observi ng t hat a f eder alcour t ' s " i nher ent power t o puni sh bad- f ai t h conduct does not extendt o act i ons i n a separ at e st at e cour t pr oceedi ng") ; Hunt er v.Ear t hgr ai ns Co. Baker y, 281 F. 3d 144, 157 n. 20 ( 4t h Ci r . 2002)( not i ng t hat a di st r i ct j udge "l acked aut hor i t y under t he f eder alr ul es t o sanct i on [ an at t or ney] f or conduct occur r i ng i n st at ecour t ") . We, however , can' t t el l what ( i f anyt hi ng) t he di st r i ctcour t sanct i oned or wher e, f r om t he j udge' s per spect i ve, anymi sconduct occur r ed. Accor di ngl y, we not e t he ar gument has beenr ai sed, but we t ake no posi t i on on i t s mer i t s and l eave i t t o t hedi str i ct cour t t o sor t out ( i f necessar y) i n t he f i r st i nstance.



- 42 -

2. Madrigal, Inc. and Calderón

We come now t o Madr i gal , I nc. ' s and Cal derón' s argument s

t hat t hey cannot be hel d l i abl e f or Ri ver a' s i nj ur i es.

Madr i gal , I nc. ' s t heor y, f i r st r ai sed ( as best we can

t el l ) i n i t s mot i on f or summar y j udgment , i s t hat i t cannot be

l i abl e t o t he pl ai nt i f f s because i t i s mer el y a l andowner and had

not hi ng t o do wi t h t he hor se r ent al busi ness. See CMI v. Munc. of

Bayamón, 410 F. Supp. 2d 61, 75 (D. P. R. 2006) ( "The i mposi t i on of

t or t l i abi l i t y f or t he acti on of a t hi r d par t y ar i ses onl y under

cer t ai n except i onal ci r cumst ances. ") . Cal der ón, f or hi s par t ,

says i n hi s summar y j udgment of f er i ng t hat he i s l egal l y di st i nct

f r om hi s cor por at i on and, t her ef or e, cannot be hel d per sonal l y

l i abl e f or t he negl i gence of Pasi ón' s empl oyees. See Bur gos-

Oquendo v. Car i bbean Gul f Ref i ni ng Corp. , 741 F. Supp. 330, 332

( D. P. R. 1990) ( "As a gener al r ul e, a per son i s onl y l i abl e f or hi s

own act s or omi ssi ons and onl y by except i on i s a per son l i abl e f or

t he act s or omi ssi ons of ot her s. ") .

Opposi ng t he summary j udgment mot i on, t he pl ai nt i f f s

ar gued t hat Madr i gal , I nc. ' s i ncl usi on on t he Rel ease Ri ver a si gned

i s evi dence that t he two compani es oper ated t he horse r ent al

busi ness t oget her , whi ch makes Madr i gal , I nc. l i abl e as a j oi nt

vent ur er . They f ur t her ar gued t hat Madr i gal , I nc. may be hel d

l i abl e on an apparent aut hor i t y theory gi ven t he evi dence adduced

i n di scover y showi ng t hat Madr i gal , I nc. knowi ngl y al l owed Pasi ón



- 43 -

t o ut i l i ze Madr i gal , I nc. ' s bet t er - known name and st or e of goodwi l l

i n t he communi t y t o at t r act cust omer s f or i t s hor se r ent al

busi ness. See Gr aj al es- Romer o v. Am. Ai r l i nes, I nc. , 194 F. 3d

288, 293 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ( "Under Puer t o Ri co l aw, an appar ent

pr i nci pal may be hel d l i abl e f or t he act s of i t s appar ent agent

wher e t he appar ent pr i nci pal ' s act i ons ' l ed t he pl ai nt i f f s t o

r easonabl y bel i eve [ i n i t s] r epr esent at i on' of aut hor i t y and

cont r ol over t he appar ent agent , t hr ough t he appar ent pr i nci pal ' s

conduct , i ncl udi ng i t s ' si l ence, evasi ve l anguage and

appear ances. ' " ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Ber r í os v.

U. P. R. , 16 P. R. Of f i c. Trans. 112, 122 ( 1985) ) ) . I n addi t i on,

t hey ar gued t hat Cal der ón i s per sonal l y l i abl e f or t he negl i gent

act s of hi s cor por at i on' s empl oyees because Cal der ón, as Pasi ón' s

pr i nci pal , oper at ed t he hor se r ent al busi ness at t he t i me of

Ri ver a' s i nj ur y. See P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 31, § 5142 ( "Owner s or

di r ector s of an est abl i shment or ent er pr i se ar e . . . l i abl e f or

any damages caused by t hei r empl oyees i n t he servi ce of t he

br anches i n whi ch t he l at t er ar e empl oyed or on account of t hei r

dut i es. " ) .

I n denyi ng summary j udgment , t he di st r i ct j udge

succi nct l y wr ot e t hat " [ d] i sput ed mat er i al f act s r emai n concer ni ng

t he r esponsi bi l i t y and r ol e of each def endant i n t hi s case. " And

hi s order on t he mot i on f or r econsi der at i on f ocused sol el y on t he

st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons. Cl ear l y t hen, t he j udge t hought t her e was



- 44 -

a j ur y quest i on on at l east one of t he t heor i es of l i abi l i t y

agai nst Madr i gal , I nc. and Pasi ón.

These ar gument s about Madr i gal , I nc. and Pasi ón di d not

end wi t h t he summary j udgment deni al . Bef ore t r i al began, t he

def endant s submi t t ed pr oposed j ur y i nst r uct i ons t hat woul d have

i nf or med t he j ur y t hey must f i nd Ber r í os and hi s cor por at i ons

( i . e. , Madr i gal , I nc. ) not l i abl e i f t hey had no i nt er est i n Pasi ón

ot her t han as a l essor , or i f t hey di d not have cont r ol separ at e

f r om t hat of a l andowner over Pasi ón' s act i vi t i es, or i f t hey di d

not shar e pr of i t s wi t h Pasi ón f r om Pasi ón' s hor se r ent al busi ness.

Then, on t he t hi r d day of t r i al , t he def endant s ar gued

i n t hei r or al mot i on f or j udgment as a mat t er of l aw t hat t he t r i al

evi dence pr oved Pasi ón was t he onl y def endant t hat operat ed t he

hor se r ent al busi ness and, t her ef or e, t he cl ai ms agai nst al l ot her

def endant s shoul d be di smi ssed. The j udge' s r esponse, whi ch he

made wi t hout aski ng t he pl ai nt i f f s f or t hei r f eedback, was t o say

t hat any ent i t y l i st ed on t he Rel ease ( meani ng Madr i gal , I nc. ) was

" t echni cal l y speaki ng i nvol ved" and woul d st ay i n t he case. He

di d not , however , expl ai n why he concl uded t hat Madr i gal , I nc.

coul d be l i abl e f or Pasi ón' s negl i gence sol el y by vi r t ue of i t

havi ng been i ncl uded on t he Rel ease. Nei t her di d he t el l t he

par t i es why Cal der ón coul d be hel d per sonal l y l i abl e.

Bef ore t he case went t o the j ur y, t he def endant s asked

t he j udge t o i nst r uct t he j ur y t hat i f t hey f i nd one def endant



- 45 -

l i abl e, t hi s al one does not mean t hat al l def endant s ar e l i abl e.

The def endant s al so pr oposed gi vi ng t he j ur y a separ at e ver di ct

f or m f or each def endant i n t he case. And t he pr oposed f or m f or

Madr i gal , I nc. woul d have t ol d t he j ur y t hat i t was not l i abl e

unl ess t he j ur y f ound t hat Madr i gal , I nc. owned or oper at ed t he

hor se r ent al busi ness on J ul y 4, 2009.

The j udge di d not obl i ge def ense counsel ' s r equest t o

separ at e out t he def endant s or i nst r uct t he j ur y on di f f er ent

t heor i es of l i abi l i t y. The j ur y i nst r ucti ons he actual l y gave

t r eat ed t he r emai ni ng def endant s ( Madr i gal , I nc. , Cal der ón, and

Pasi ón) as a si ngl e uni t , and r ef er r ed t o t he t hr ee col l ect i vel y

as " Def endant s" wi t hout el uci dat i ng separ at e t heor i es of l i abi l i t y

agai nst each. Di t t o wi t h t he ver di ct f orm, whi ch si mpl y asked

whet her t he pl ai nt i f f s had "pr ove[ d] t hat t he owner or possessor

of t he hor se i s l i abl e f or t he damages caused by i t . "

Post - ver di ct , t he def endant s' r enewed mot i on f or

j udgment as a mat t er of l aw ar gued t hat nei t her Madr i gal , I nc. nor

Cal der ón can be hel d l i abl e because they "ar e separ at e and di st i nct

ent i t i es f r omPasi ón. " They ar gued t hat none of t he t r i al evi dence

t ended to show t hat Madr i gal , I nc. was r esponsi bl e f or t he

hor seback r i di ng busi ness. Fur t her mor e, t he def endant s sai d t her e

was no evi dence t o suppor t pi er ci ng t he cor por at e vei l t o hol d

Cal der ón per sonal l y l i abl e f or Pasi ón' s negl i gence.



- 46 -

I n opposi t i on, t he pl ai nt i f f s made bot h pr ocedur al and

subst ant i ve ar gument s. They f i r st t ook t he posi t i on t hat t he

def endant s' Rul e 50( b) mot i on was dead on ar r i val because t he

def endant s ( 1) f ai l ed t o "r ai se a pr oper Rul e 50( a) i nsuf f i ci ency

of t he evi dence mot i on bef ore t he case was submi t t ed t o the j ur y, "

and ( 2) di d not obj ect t o t he j ur y i nst r uct i ons af t er t he cour t

gave t hem. Accor di ngl y, t he pl ai nt i f f s sai d t he ar gument s had

been pr ocedur al l y def aul t ed and t hat t he j udge coul d summar i l y

deny t he def endant s' mot i on. They al so r ei t er at ed t he j oi nt

vent ur e and apparent aut hor i t y ar gument s t hey' d rai sed at summary

j udgment , onl y t hi s t i me t hey r ef er r ed t o t he evi dence t hat came

i n at t r i al .

The di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he def endant s' post - t r i al

mot i on i n a docket or der wi t hout expl anat i on. Because mul t i pl e

l egal t heor i es had been advanced and wer e bef ore t he cour t , t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s concl usi ons of l aw "ar e not di scer ni bl e" f r omt he

docket or der . Franci s, 81 F. 3d at 7. I t i s aki n t o a "mar gi n

or der . . . not amenabl e t o rel i abl e appel l at e r evi ew under any

st andar d. " I d.

Mor eover , t hough t hese ar gument s had been bef or e t he

cour t pr evi ousl y, t he l i mi t ed r ecor d submi t t ed f or t hi s appeal

does not di scl ose what t he j udge t hought about t hem bef or e or at



- 47 -

t r i a l . 31 A f ur t her wr i nkl e i s added by t he pl ai nt i f f s' post -

ver di ct ar gument t hat t he def endant s' r enewed mot i on f or j udgment

as a mat t er of l aw was pr ocedur al l y def aul t ed and shoul d be

summar i l y deni ed. The par t i es have not pr ovi ded us wi t h a

t r anscri pt of t he j udge' s or al i nst r uct i ons t o t he j ur y or of any

post - char ge di scussi on wi t h t he par t i es. So we cannot t el l whet her

or not t he pl ai nt i f f s' r epr esent at i on t hat t he def endant s f ai l ed

t o obj ect t o t he gi ven i nst r uct i ons i s cor r ect . I n sum, t he r ecor d

on appeal sheds no l i ght on whet her t he di st r i ct j udge rel i ed on

pr ocedur al or subst ant i ve gr ounds ( or some combi nat i on) i n denyi ng

t he def ense mot i on. 32

31 Except t hat t he j udge concl uded at t he summar y j udgment

st age t hat at l east one of t hose theor i es pr esent ed a j ur yquest i on.

32 The pl ai nt i f f s ' appel l at e br i ef i s not par t i cul ar l y hel pf ulei t her , as i t f ocuses al most ent i r el y on t hei r vi ew t hat t hedi st r i ct cour t st r uck t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons def ense as asanct i on. I n f act , t hey onl y br i ef l y t ouch upon Madr i gal , I nc. ' sand Cal der ón' s argument s, and even t hen t hei r t r eatment of t hei ssue does not extend beyond t hei r observat i on t hat t hese par t i esar e l i abl e t o t hem because t he j ur y f ound t he Rel ease to bei nval i d. Such super f i ci al t r eat ment of t he i ssue r uns t he r i sk ofour f i ndi ng i t wai ved f or i nadequat e br i ef i ng on appeal . SeeUni t ed St at es v. Zanni no, 895 F. 2d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) . Her e,however , t he def endant s have not asked us t o f i nd t hat t hepl ai nt i f f s wai ved any ar gument s wi t h r espect t o Madr i gal , I nc. ' sand Cal der ón' s l i abi l i t y. So t hey have, essent i al l y, wai ved t hei rwai ver argument . Thi s, combi ned wi t h t he f act t hat we are al r eadyr emandi ng on t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons def ense, counsel s agai nsta f i ndi ng of appel l at e wai ver and al l owi ng each si de t o pr esent t ot he di st r i ct cour t any ar gument i t sees f i t .



As wi t h t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons i ssue, we wi l l not

r el y on guesswor k as t he j umpi ngof f poi nt f or our anal ysi s.

Prudence di ct ates t hat we r emand f or t he j udge t o expl ai n t he

gr ounds on whi ch he deni ed t he def endant s' Rul e 50( b) mot i on.

CONCLUSION

Based on t he f or egoi ng, t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of

t he def endant s' r enewed mot i on f or j udgment as a mat t er of l aw i s

vacated and t hi s mat t er i s remanded f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs

consi st ent wi t h t hi s opi ni on. The di st r i ct cour t i s i nst r ucted t o

expl ai n whet her i t bar r ed t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons def ense as a

sanct i on or a mat t er of l aw ( or , per haps, on some ot her basi s) and

expl ai n i t s reasoni ng f or doi ng so. I t shoul d al so set f or t h i t s

r easoni ng wi t h r espect t o Cal der ón' s and Madr i gal , I nc. ' s

l i abi l i t y. The di st r i ct cour t , whi ch may or der br i ef i ng or convene

a hear i ng on any remanded i ssue i f deemed appr opr i at e, i s her eby

i nst r uct ed t o r ender i t s deci si on on t he def endant s' r enewed mot i on

f or j udgment as a mat t er of l aw wi t hi n ni net y ( 90) days f r om t he

dat e of t hi s opi ni on. We r et ai n appel l at e j ur i sdi ct i on.

Rivera-Carrasquillo v. Calderon-Lozano, 1st Cir. (2016)

Documents

Transcript of Rivera-Carrasquillo v. Calderon-Lozano, 1st Cir. (2016)