Guzman-Fonalledas v. Hosp. Expaol Auxilio Mutuo

Citation: 289 F. Supp. 3d 331Docket: CASE NO. 16–1602 (GAG)

Court: United States District Court; January 29, 2018; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Plaintiffs Mayra Guzmán-Fonalledas and Roberto Resto-Martínez filed a negligence lawsuit against multiple defendants, including Hospital Español Auxilio Mutuo de Puerto Rico, Inc., and several doctors, under Puerto Rico law in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The defendants moved to dismiss the case, claiming lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to join an indispensable party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. In response, the plaintiffs sought voluntary dismissal of the Puerto Rico Medical Defense Insurance Company (PRMDIC) and requested the court to deny the defendants' motion to dismiss. 

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for voluntary dismissal of PRMDIC and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The factual background reveals that Guzmán-Fonalledas underwent an endoscopy that led to a misdiagnosis of cancer, which was later corrected following surgery. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the misdiagnosis and its consequences. After amending their complaint to initially add PRMDIC and subsequently drop Dr. Nella Fernández to maintain diversity jurisdiction, the defendants argued that PRMDIC, as an insurer of Fernández, was a Florida citizen, thereby affecting jurisdiction. The court ordered discussions on whether Dr. Fernández was an indispensable party, ultimately addressing the motions for voluntary dismissal and dismissal. The court's ruling aligns with legal standards permitting voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2).

In Colón-Cabrera v. Esso Standard Oil Co. P.R. Inc., the First Circuit affirmed that a plaintiff can voluntarily dismiss a case without prejudice as long as no other party is prejudiced, as established in previous rulings. The court evaluated whether PRMDIC's dismissal would harm the defendants and whether PRMDIC was a dispensable non-diverse party. The defendants claimed that the dismissal was a tactic to negate diversity jurisdiction, but the plaintiffs argued that the dismissal was in the interest of efficiency, asserting PRMDIC's dispensability in relation to joint liability. The court found no merit in the defendants' claims, ruling that plaintiffs are entitled to dismiss PRMDIC to remedy any jurisdictional issues under Rule 21. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for voluntary dismissal regarding PRMDIC.

Regarding the defendants' motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), the court deemed it moot since PRMDIC was no longer part of the case, thus preserving the court's jurisdiction as complete diversity was restored. The defendants' challenge under Rule 12(b)(7) for failure to join a party under Rule 19 was also addressed, indicating that while the court must assess the necessity of a party's joinder, it need not elaborate on this analysis given that Dr. Fernández's role as a joint tortfeasor simplifies the determination of indispensability.

It is established that not all joint tortfeasors need to be included as defendants in a single lawsuit, as supported by Alejandro-Ortiz v. Puerto Rico Elec. Power Auth. and Temple v. Synthes Corp. Ltd. In Puerto Rico, individuals involved in a negligent act are considered joint tortfeasors and are fully liable for the damages incurred, as referenced in Jimenez-Ruiz v. Spirit Airlines. Consequently, under Rule 19, it is unnecessary to join all potentially liable parties in an action. In the present case, Plaintiffs claim that Dr. Fernández and Dr. Carlo-Vargas jointly misdiagnosed Guzmán-Fonalledas's condition, establishing them as joint tortfeasors. Since not all joint tortfeasors must be included, Dr. Fernández does not need to be a defendant. Therefore, the Court denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Additionally, the Court grants the Plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary dismissal of claims against PRMDIC, dismissing them without prejudice. The Court also reaffirms that, due to PRMDIC's dismissal and Dr. Fernández being a joint tortfeasor, the motion to dismiss is denied. The Court refers to the moving party as 'Defendants' for simplicity, as only Dr. Carlo-Vargas filed the motion, with others joining.