Carrasquillo-Serrano v. Municipality of Canovanas ( 2021 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 18-1701
JULIO CARRASQUILLO-SERRANO, personally and on behalf of his
minor children; GABRIELA JANIRIS DIAZ OCASIO, [common law wife,]
personally and on behalf of her minor children; N.C.D., a minor;
JAN CARLOS DELGADO, a minor; Y.C.D., a minor,
Plaintiffs, Appellees,
v.
MUNICIPALITY OF CANOVANAS,
Defendant, Appellant,
C.D.T. OF CANOVANAS; S.M. MEDICAL SERVICES, C.S.P.; OSVALDO
AVILES-RIBOT; PUERTO RICO MEDICAL DEFENSE INSURANCE CO.; JOHN
DOE CORPORATION, d/b/a C.D.T. of Canovanas; JOHN DOES 1, 2 AND
3; A, B AND C CORPORATIONS; UNKNOWN INSURANCE COMPANIES A
THROUGH J; JANE DOE; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP AVILES-DOE,
Defendants.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Silvia Carreno-Coll, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
Before
Howard, Chief Judge,
Thompson and Kayatta, Circuit Judges.
Edgar Hernández Sánchez, with whom Cancio, Nadal, Rivera &
Díaz, P.S.C. was on brief, for Appellant.
David Efron, with whom Alberto J. Pérez Hernández, Etienne
Totti del Toro, and Law Offices of David Efron, P.C. were on brief,
for Appellees.
March 12, 2021
HOWARD, Chief Judge. The Municipality of Canovanas
("Canovanas") appeals from the district court's denial of its Rule
60(b) motion to overturn the default judgment entered for
plaintiffs Julio Carrasquillo-Serrano ("Carrasquillo"), his wife
Gabriela Janiris Diaz Ocasio, and their minor children NCD, Jan
Carlos Delgado, and YCD. The plaintiffs' claims arose under the
Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act ("EMTALA"), 42 U.S.C.
§ 1395dd, and Puerto Rico law, and the liability of Canovanas was
premised on the plaintiffs' allegation that Canovanas "owned,
operated and/or managed, in whole or in part," CDT of Canovanas
("CDT"), the emergency medical facility that provided medical
services to Carrasquillo.
On appeal, Canovanas argues that the judgment should be
set aside for four independent reasons: (1) the plaintiffs'
failure to comply with the 90-day notice requirement of the Puerto
Rico Autonomous Municipalities Act (the "PRAMA"), P.R. Laws Ann.
tit. 21, § 4703, stripped the district court of jurisdiction;
(2) the district court never had personal jurisdiction over
Canovanas because the plaintiffs executed service on an attorney
who worked for Canovanas instead of the municipality's mayor, as
required by statute; (3) the judgment exceeded Puerto Rico
statutory limits on the liability of municipalities; and (4) the
district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because CDT lies
outside the reach of EMTALA.
- 3 -
For the reasons set forth below, we reject each of
Canovanas's arguments and affirm the judgment of the district
court.
I. Background
On two separate occasions on March 16 and 17, 2014,
Carrasquillo sought medical attention at CDT for a variety of
symptoms, including dizziness, nausea, and difficulty speaking.
He was treated during each visit by Dr. Osvaldo Avíles-Ribot, who
discharged Carrasquillo with only medication for nausea and an
intramuscular antibiotic. A week later, Carrasquillo, unable to
speak, went to a different hospital and was diagnosed with severe
neurological injuries. Allegedly as a result of the failures in
diagnosis and treatment by Dr. Avíles and CDT, Carrasquillo is
"unable to work and to care for his family, his speech and hearing
have been severely impaired, the right side of his body has limited
movement, he lacks coordination, suffers from constant headaches,
cannot swallow or breathe well, his feet hurt, he must use a cane
to walk, cannot write, and suffers from diabetes and high
cholesterol."
In March of 2015, Carrasquillo, his spouse, and their
three minor children filed a complaint, including a claim under
EMTALA and medical malpractice claims under the Civil Code of
Puerto Rico. That complaint named several defendants, including
Dr. Avíles, CDT, its owner Canovanas, and S.M. Medical Services,
- 4 -
C.S.P. ("S.M. Medical"), which operated the CDT on behalf of
Canovanas. The plaintiffs alleged that: (1) Canovanas "owned,
operated and/or managed" CDT; (2) CDT has an emergency room and
renders 24-hour emergency medical services; (3) CDT is governed by
EMTALA; (4) NCD, Jan Carlos Delgado, and YCD were all minors; and
(5) Carrasquillo was permanently disabled as a result of the
defendants' negligence.
The complaint was filed on March 11, 2015. Canovanas
has maintained before us, and the plaintiffs do not dispute, that
the plaintiffs did not provide advance notice of the suit to
Canovanas. The plaintiffs served the complaint and summons on
March 17, 2015, not on the mayor of Canovanas personally, but on
an attorney employed by Canovanas, Josué González. Neither
Canovanas nor CDT responded to the complaint or filed any
dispositive motions in the district court until after judgment was
entered against them. Other defendants, including Dr. Avíles and
S.M. Medical, appeared and filed answers to the complaint.
Throughout much of the period when this litigation was ongoing,
S.M. Medical continued to operate CDT on behalf of Canovanas and
was a party to the litigation until S.M. Medical entered bankruptcy
proceedings.
On April 27, 2015, the plaintiffs moved for an entry of
default against Canovanas and CDT. On May 4, 2015, the clerk of
court entered default against Canovanas and CDT. On May 18, 2015,
- 5 -
the plaintiffs asked the court to enter default judgment against
Canovanas and CDT. The district court declined, citing concerns
about split judgment because other defendants remained in the case.
The plaintiffs again sought a default judgment two years later in
June 2017, and the district court again declined, this time because
a trial on damages had already been scheduled. Neither of the
plaintiffs' motions for default judgment included the required
statement "that a copy of the motion has been mailed to the last
known address of the [defaulting party]," D.P.R. Local R. Civ. P.
55(a), and the plaintiffs have not submitted any other evidence
that Canovanas had been notified of its default.
In April 2017, after settlement discussions, the
district court had entered judgment against codefendants Dr.
Avilés and Puerto Rico Medical Defense Insurance Company. A jury
trial on damages with respect to Canovanas and CDT was held on
July 18, 2017, and the jury reached a verdict that day. Judgment
was entered against Canovanas and CDT on August 30, 2017, in the
amounts of $900,000 to Carrasquillo ($500,000 for lost wages and
$400,000 for present and future suffering), $300,000 for Gabriela
Janiris Díaz Ocasio, and $100,000 to each of the minor plaintiffs,
for a total of $1.5 million.
In March 2018, almost three years after González was
served with the initial complaint, Canovanas appeared and moved to
set aside the verdict and judgment. In its Rule 60(b) motion,
- 6 -
Canovanas attributed the delay in its response to Hurricane Maria,
which made landfall on Puerto Rico in September 2017, roughly
thirty months after the initial complaint was filed and nearly
three weeks after judgment was entered against Canovanas. After
the district court denied this motion, Canovanas appealed from
that ruling.
II. Standard of Review
We devote attention to the applicable standards of
review for Canovanas's arguments because those standards are
central to the outcome of this case. Had they been raised at the
proper procedural juncture, one or more of the arguments that
Canovanas now advances might have prevented it from being held
liable for the $1.5 million judgment. We ordinarily prefer to
resolve disputes on their merits. See Keane v. HSBC Bank USA for
Ellington Tr., Series 2007-2, 874 F.3d 763, 765 (1st Cir. 2017)
("[T]he law . . . manifests a strong preference that cases be
resolved on their merits."). But there are nevertheless
consequences for failing to assert rights in a timely manner.
"On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party"
from judgment for a handful of enumerated reasons, including that
"the judgment is void," as argued by the appellant here. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b)(4). Normally, "[a] motion to set aside a default
judgment is within the sound discretion of the trial court." Maine
Nat. Bank v. F/V Explorer, 833 F.2d 375, 378 (1st Cir. 1987)
- 7 -
(citing Am. Metal Serv. Exp. Co. v. Ahrens Aircraft, Inc., 666
F.2d 718, 720 (1st Cir. 1981)). When a motion for relief from
judgment comes under Rule 60(b)(4), however, our review is de novo,
"because a judgment is either void or it is not." Shank/Balfour
Beatty, a Joint Venture of M.L. Shank, Co., Inc., Balfour Beatty
Construction, Inc. v. Int'l Broth. Of Elec. Workers Local 99, 497
F.3d 83, 94 (1st Cir. 2007) (quoting Fafel v. DiPaola, 499 F.3d
403, 409-10 (1st Cir. 2005)).
Though our review is de novo, the Supreme Court has
cautioned that "[a] judgment is not void . . . simply because it
is or may have been erroneous." United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v.
Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 270 (2010) (quoting Hoult v. Hoult, 57
F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 1995)).
There are only two sets of circumstances in
which a judgment is void (as opposed to
voidable). The first is when the rendering
court lacked either subject matter
jurisdiction or jurisdiction over a
defendant's person. The second is when the
rendering court's actions so far exceeded a
proper exercise of judicial power that a
violation of the Due Process Clause results.
Farm Credit Bank v. Ferrera-Goitia, 316 F.3d 62, 67 (1st Cir. 2003)
(citing United States v. Boch Oldsmobile, Inc., 909 F.2d 657, 661
(1st Cir. 1990)); see also United Student Aid Funds, 559 U.S. at
271 ("Rule 60(b)(4) applies only in the rare instance where a
judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional
- 8 -
error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of
notice or the opportunity to be heard.").
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has observed with
approval that "[f]ederal courts considering Rule 60(b)(4) motions
that assert a judgment is void because of a jurisdictional defect
generally have reserved relief only for the exceptional case in
which the court that rendered judgment lacked even an 'arguable
basis' for jurisdiction." United Student Aid Funds, 559 U.S. at
271 (quoting Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 65 (2d Cir. 1986)).
In so holding, the Court cited to one of our cases holding that
"total want of jurisdiction must be distinguished from an error in
the exercise of jurisdiction, and . . . only rare instances of a
clear usurpation of power will render a judgment void." Id.(alterations and internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Boch
Oldsmobile, 909 F.2d at 661-62).
Our review is thus non-deferential but narrow; we focus
solely on whether there was "a clear usurpation of power" in the
district court's exercise of jurisdiction or the alleged violation
of due process. Id. (quoting Boch Oldsmobile, 909 F.2d at 662).
Finally, we also note that Canovanas did not raise any
argument about the limits of EMTALA in the district court. We
conclude that, even applying de novo review, there was no clear
usurpation of power in the district court's exercise of
jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' EMTALA claims. Accordingly,
- 9 -
this Rule 60(b)(4) argument would fail even if it had been
preserved.
III. Canovanas's Claims
Canovanas advances four arguments in support of its
contention that the district court erred in refusing to grant its
motion to set aside the judgment against it as void under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4): (1) the plaintiffs failed to
comply with the notice deadline of the PRAMA and thus the district
court never obtained jurisdiction over Canovanas; (2) the
plaintiffs served notice on counsel for Canovanas instead of the
mayor and thus the district court never obtained personal
jurisdiction over Canovanas; (3) the judgment exceeds Puerto Rico
law limitations on the liability of municipalities; and (4) the
district court lacked federal question subject matter jurisdiction
because CDT is not covered by EMTALA. Because none of the
arguments identifies a clear usurpation of power, each argument
fails.
A. The PRAMA Service Requirement Is Not Jurisdictional.
The PRAMA requires that individuals who plan to sue a
Puerto Rico municipality for damages notify the mayor of the
municipality within ninety days of learning of the damages giving
rise to the claim. P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 21, § 4703. Canovanas
contends that the requirement is jurisdictional and, because the
plaintiffs did not comply with it, the district court never
- 10 -
obtained jurisdiction over Canovanas. We conclude, however, that
the PRAMA's notice requirement is not jurisdictional, and so we
need not address whether the plaintiffs satisfied the statute.
The PRAMA is part of a chapter of Puerto Rico's code
titled, "Jurisdiction of the Courts," and the statute itself states
that it is a "Jurisdictional Requirement. No legal action of any
kind shall be initiated against a municipality for damages due to
negligence unless written notification is made in the form, manner
and terms provided in this subtitle." Id. § 4703(b). The
requirement "is 'a condition precedent of strict compliance in
order to be able to sue [a] municipality.'" Rodriguez-Robledo v.
P.R. Elec. Power Auth., 90 F. Supp. 2d 175, 178 (D.P.R. 2000)
(quoting Mangual v. Superior Court, 88 P.R.R. 475, 483 (1963)).
At first glance, this would seem to settle the matter in
Canovanas's favor.
But, as a federal court construing the requirements of
Puerto Rico law, "we must apply the state's law on substantive
issues and 'we are bound by the teachings of the state's highest
court.'" Phoung Luc v. Wyndham Mgmt. Corp., 496 F.3d 85, 88 (1st
Cir. 2007) (quoting N. Am. Specialty Ins. Co. v. Lapalme, 258 F.3d
35, 37-38 (1st Cir. 2001)). Because "[i]n regard to law-
determination, Puerto Rico is the functional equivalent of a
state[,] . . . an on-point decision of the Puerto Rico Supreme
- 11 -
Court normally will control." Gonzalez Figueroa v. J.C. Penney
P.R., Inc., 568 F.3d 313, 318 (1st Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
The Puerto Rico Supreme Court has chipped away at the
PRAMA notice requirement and its predecessors in three ways that
cause us to conclude that the requirement is not jurisdictional.
First, the court has consistently treated the notice requirement
as an affirmative defense that can be waived. See Mintatos v.
Municip. of San Juan, 322 F. Supp. 2d 143, 146 (D.P.R. 2004)
(observing that the Puerto Rico Supreme Court has called the notice
requirement an "unprivileged defense" and held that the
requirement can be waived) (citing Ins. Co. of P.R. v. Ruiz
Morales, 96 D.P.R. 164, 176, 1968 WL 17227 (P.R. 1968)). Indeed,
counsel for Canovanas agreed at oral argument that the notice
requirement is an affirmative defense. Affirmative defenses are
generally waivable if not asserted at the proper juncture and
rarely, if ever, limit the court's jurisdiction. Compare Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(h)(1) (enumerating ways in which certain affirmative
defenses can be waived), with Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ("If the
court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.").
Second, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court has discerned a
wide variety of exceptions that might not be immediately apparent
from the text of the statute, holding that:
- 12 -
[T]he notice requirement is not jurisdictional
in the sense that it admits of certain
exceptions. For example, the provision is not
applicable to the municipality's insurance
company. In addition, it does not apply to
actions against a municipality arising out of
a contractual relationship, or to cases where
the municipality is the plaintiff and the
defendant files a counterclaim against it, or
cases where the plaintiff is seeking just
compensation in a civil expropriation case.
Rodriguez-Robledo, 90 F. Supp. 2d at 178 (collecting cases)
(citations omitted). The Puerto Rico Supreme Court characterized
its own approach as "liberal . . . in the application of the notice
requirement [with a] tendency to strictly construe those
provisions that limit a person's right to seek redress."
Passalacqua v. Mun. de San Juan, 116 D.P.R. 618, 16 P.R. Offic.
Trans. 756, 768 (P.R. 1985) (interpreting a predecessor to the
current municipality notice requirement).
Third, and critically, in recounting the evolution of
its interpretations of the PRAMA, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court
quoted from its prior ruling that a predecessor to the current
notice requirement, "although it is of strict compliance . . . is
not a strictly jurisdictional requirement." Id. at 767 (emphasis
added) (quoting Ruiz Morales, 96 D.P.R. at 174). In Passalacqua,
the Puerto Rico Supreme Court also cited one of its earlier
decisions, which had concluded that:
where the risk of the objective evidence's
disappearance is minimal, where there is
effective proof of the identity of the
- 13 -
witnesses, and where the State may easily
investigate and corroborate the facts alleged
in the complaint filed -- the prior notice
requirement is not strictly applicable
inasmuch as the objective sought by the
application thereof has no raison d'être.
16 P.R. Offic. Trans. at 769 (alterations omitted) (quoting
Meléndez Gutiérrez v. E.L.A., 113 D.P.R. 811, 815 (P.R. 1983)).
The Passalacqua court went on to hold that the filing of the
complaint and service of the summons within the statutory period
sufficed to satisfy the notice requirements. Id.Because the Puerto Rico Supreme Court has treated the
PRAMA notice requirement as an affirmative defense, has read
exceptions into it, and has specifically held that a predecessor
notice statute was not jurisdictional, we conclude that the
requirement is not jurisdictional. Therefore, regardless of
whether the plaintiffs satisfied the requirement, the judgment is
not void for lack of jurisdiction.
B. Service of Process Was Sufficient.
Canovanas argues next that the district court lacked
personal jurisdiction over it because it was never properly served.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(j)(2), service of process
may be made on a municipality by "(A) delivering a copy of the
summons and of the complaint to its chief executive officer; or
(B) serving a copy of each in the manner prescribed by that state's
law for serving a summons or like process on such defendant." The
- 14 -
Federal Rules thereby incorporate the Puerto Rico Rules, which
provide for service "[u]pon a municipal corporation or agency
thereof with standing to sue and be sued, by delivering a copy of
the summons and of the complaint to the chief executive officer
thereof or to a person designated by him." P.R. Laws Ann. tit.
32a, § 4.4(h) (emphasis added). We ask, then, whether González
was "a person designated by" the mayor to accept service. Id.
We have held that "[a] return of service generally serves
as prima facie evidence that service was validly performed." Blair
v. City of Worcester, 522 F.3d 105, 111 (1st Cir. 2008). That
presumption of proper service is not insurmountable: in Blair, the
presumption was overcome by a simple affidavit stating that the
parties who received service were not authorized to accept service.
Id. at 111-12.
Here, the plaintiffs filed a return of service with the
court, executed by process server and declaring under penalty of
perjury that the complaint and summons were served upon González,
"who is designated by law to accept service on behalf of"
Canovanas. That return of service thereby creates the rebuttable
presumption "that service was validly performed." Id. at 111.
Canovanas has failed to overcome that presumption.
Canovanas admits that González "was an in-house counsel employed
by" Canovanas, claiming only that González was not the mayor, and,
"[r]esultantly, the Municipality of Canóvanas was not properly
- 15 -
served." Although Canovanas has apparently been unable to locate
González after being confronted with the judgment, Canovanas does
not dispute that González was served, and the burden at this point
is on Canovanas, not the plaintiffs. Canovanas has not presented
an affidavit that González was not authorized to accept service,
any other evidence that might rebut the presumption of proper
service, any argument that the presumption should not apply under
these circumstances, or any other reason why the presumption should
be rebutted.
Without any evidence about González's status or argument
from Canovanas about the inapplicability of the presumption, we
conclude that the district court did not undertake "a clear
usurpation of power" by applying the rebuttable presumption of
proper service and exercising jurisdiction over Canovanas. United
Student Aid Funds, 559 U.S. at 271.
C. A Statutory Limitation of Liability Is an Affirmative
Defense.
Canovanas has also argued that the $1.5 million judgment
against it is void because Canovanas, as a municipality, is
entitled to a limitation of its liability under Puerto Rico law.
P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 21, § 4704 provides:
Claims against municipalities for personal or
property damages caused by the fault or
negligence of the municipality, shall not
exceed the amount of seventy-five thousand
dollars ($75,000). When damages are claimed
by more than one person in a single cause of
- 16 -
action or omission, or when a single claimant,
is entitled to several causes of action the
compensation shall not exceed the sum of one
hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($150,000).
If the court finds the damages to each of the
persons exceed one hundred and fifty thousand
dollars ($150,000), the court shall proceed to
distribute or prorate said amount among the
plaintiffs, on the basis of the damages
suffered by each of them.
While a judgment ten times the statutory limit certainly
raises eyebrows, to serve as a basis to set aside a judgment under
Rule 60(b)(4), the excessive judgment must either be "a clear
usurpation of power" in the court's exercise of jurisdiction or "a
violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or the
opportunity to be heard." United Student Aid Funds, 559 U.S. at
271. It is neither.
We have seen this issue before. We previously reviewed
a case in which a defendant failed to assert a statutory
limitation-of-liability defense, but the district court
nonetheless found that the Massachusetts statute limited the
plaintiff's potential recovery. See Knapp Shoes, Inc. v. Sylvania
Shoe Mfg. Corp., 15 F.3d 1222, 1225-26 (1st Cir. 1994). We
reversed the district court, holding that "a statutory provision
limiting damages to a fixed sum constituted an affirmative defense
for purposes of [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 8(c)," and that
affirmative defenses not included in an appropriate responsive
pleading are waived. Id. at 1226. We went on to explain that
- 17 -
"[t]he reason why affirmative defenses under Rule 8(c) must be
pled in the answer is to give the opposing party notice of the
defense and a chance to develop evidence and offer arguments to
controvert the defense." Id.The defense that Canovanas raises is a statutory
limitation on liability, and, like the defendant in Knapp Shoes,
Canovanas has waived the defense by failing to include it in a
responsive pleading. Id. at 1225-26.
Moreover, any potential due process concerns may be
undercut by the ability of Canovanas to assert the statutory
liability limitations in a different venue. As the plaintiffs and
the district court both point out, Puerto Rico provides for a right
of contribution action between joint tortfeasors. The Puerto Rico
Supreme Court has observed that:
In Puerto Rico, the right of contribution
between joint tortfeasors has been
acknowledged since [1951]. The well-known
rule that applies when the damage is caused by
two or more persons provides that all joint
tortfeasors are liable to the plaintiff for
the damage sustained by the latter. However,
there is among these joint tortfeasors a right
of contribution derived from [P.R. Laws Ann.
tit. 31, § 3109], which allows one of the
codebtors who has paid more than his or her
share to claim from the other codebtors their
respective shares.
Szendrey v. Hospicare, Inc., 158 D.P.R. 648, 2003 WL 751582 (P.R.
2003) (English translation lacks pincites). Canovanas mounts no
argument that the district court erred in observing that Canovanas
- 18 -
will be able to assert the statutory limit on liability in a
subsequent contribution action against its codefendants,1 or that
forcing it to do so "deprives [it] of notice or the opportunity to
be heard." United Student Aid Funds, 559 U.S. at 271.
The statutory limit on municipal liability does not
render the judgment void.2
1 Because Canovanas has thus waived any argument on the
matter, we therefore have no occasion to decide whether the
district court was correct on this point.
2 As a last-ditch effort on this point, Canovanas also
attempts to take advantage of P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 26, § 4105, which
provides immunity from suit to health professionals. Canovanas
argues that, since the statute references municipalities, it
should also be read to grant municipalities immunity from suit.
The plain language of the statute belies this argument, providing:
No health professional (employee or
contractor) may be included as a defendant in
a civil action in a claim for damages for guilt
or negligence for professional malpractice
("malpractice") caused in the performance of
his profession, while said professional acts
in compliance with his duties and functions,
including teaching, as employee of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, its dependencies,
instrumentalities, the comprehensive Cancer
Center of the University of Puerto Rico and
the municipalities.
P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 26, § 4105. The statute unambiguously
references immunity for the employees of the municipalities, not
the municipalities themselves. The cases that Canovanas cites
similarly address immunity for employees, and not for the
municipalities themselves. See Frances-Colon v. Ramires, 107 F.3d
62, 64 (1st Cir. 1997) (finding doctor employees immune from suit);
Oquendo-Lorenzo v. Hospital San Antonio, Inc., 256 F. Supp. 3d
103, 117 (D.P.R. 2019) (examining immunity for health care
professionals and doctors, not municipalities). Section 4105 does
not grant immunity to municipalities.
- 19 -
D. The District Court Had Jurisdiction to Determine the
Merits of Plaintiffs' EMTALA Claims.
Finally, the district court did not lack federal
question jurisdiction to hear this suit. District courts have
"original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331. To determine whether the exercise of federal question
jurisdiction is proper, we apply the familiar "well-pleaded
complaint rule, which 'requires the federal question to be stated
on the face of the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint.'" López-
Muñoz v. Triple-S Salud, Inc., 754 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2014)
(quoting R.I. Fishermen's All., Inc. v. R.I. Dep't of Envtl. Mgmt.,
585 F.3d 42, 48 (1st Cir. 2009)). Where the district court has
federal question jurisdiction over claims "arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States," 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331, the district court "shall have supplemental jurisdiction
over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action
within [the court's] original jurisdiction that they form part of
the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States
Constitution." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
Here, the parties agree that (1) the complaint stated
certain EMTALA claims, and (2) if the district court properly
exercised jurisdiction over EMTALA claims, then its exercise of
- 20 -
jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' remaining claims was proper
under § 1367(a).
Canovanas argues that EMTALA does not apply to CDT, and
thus the plaintiffs' ostensible claims under EMTALA are not under
EMTALA at all. Therefore, Canovanas argues that the district court
lacks federal question jurisdiction under § 1331. In support of
this proposition, Canovanas points us to Rodriguez v. Am. Intern.
Ins. Co. of P.R., 402 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2005). There we found
that EMTALA did not apply to a different CDT, the Corozal CDT.3
In Rodriguez, we held that EMTALA did not apply to the Corozal CDT
because (1) the Corozal CDT treats outpatients instead of
inpatients, and (2) Puerto Rico law has different regulations for
hospitals than for CDTs. Id. at 48-49. Canovanas points out,
correctly, that the Canovanas CDT also treats outpatients instead
of inpatients and is also regulated as a CDT instead of as a
hospital.4
3 In this Section, we refer to CDT of Canovanas as "the
Canovanas CDT" and the CDT at issue in Rodriguez as "the Corozal
CDT."
4 On the merits of the EMTALA issue, the plaintiffs make two
arguments that the EMTALA claims here are distinguishable from the
ones at issue in Rodriguez, and that we should therefore read
EMTALA to apply to the Canovanas CDT. First, while in Rodriguez
we relied on the fact that the Corozal CDT had no relationship
with an EMTALA participating hospital, here the Canovanas CDT does
have a working relationship with an EMTALA participating hospital:
the hospital of the University of Puerto Rico. See 402 F.3d at 47("It is undisputed that the Corozal CDT is an independent facility
and is not attached to a hospital."). Second, the regulations
issued under EMTALA have been amended since Rodriguez to change
- 21 -
But Rodriguez, instead of illustrating why the district
court here did not have jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims,
illustrates why it did: we did not simply dismiss the case for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Instead, we first resolved
the question, "arising under the . . . laws . . . of the United
States," 28 U.S.C. § 1331, of whether EMTALA applied to the CDT at
issue. Rodriguez, 402 F.3d at 46-49. If Canovanas, like the
defendants in Rodriguez, had asserted in a motion that the
Canovanas CDT here is effectively the same as the Corozal CDT, and
that therefore the EMTALA claims should be dismissed, the district
court would have had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate
that motion. See, e.g., id. That subject matter jurisdiction did
not disappear because Canovanas neglected to appear and seek to
dismiss the claim against it. Canovanas did not point to any case
where any court found that the federal cause of action included in
a well-pleaded complaint was so insubstantial as to rob the
district court of jurisdiction to adjudicate that federal claim.
the definition of "dedicated emergency department," and the
plaintiffs claim that the amended definition encompasses the CDT
at issue here. See 42 C.F.R. § 489.24. Best read, the plaintiffs'
argument is not that the Canovanas CDT is itself a hospital
participating in EMTALA, but that the Canovanas CDT functions as
a dedicated emergency department of the EMTALA participating
hospital of the University of Puerto Rico. We take no view of the
merits of these arguments, but the district court would have had
subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate them.
- 22 -
Moreover, even "[t]he termination of the foundational
federal claim does not divest the district court of power to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction, but, rather, sets the stage
for an exercise of the court's informed discretion." Senra v.
Town of Smithfield, 715 F.3d 34, 41 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting Roche
v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 81 F.3d 249, 256-57 (1st Cir.
1996)). In Senra, we upheld the district court's exercise of
supplemental jurisdiction to determine a plaintiff's Rhode Island
state law claims relating to the termination of his employment
even after it had dismissed his federal due process clause claims
arising out of the same termination. Id. Similarly, here, it is
not immediately obvious that, if the EMTALA claims were dismissed,
the district court could not have nonetheless exercised
jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' state law claims.
The possibility that Canovanas would have succeeded on
a motion to dismiss the EMTALA claims does not mean the district
court lacked federal question subject matter jurisdiction.
IV. Conclusion
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
- 23 -