De la Cruz-Candela v. JetBlue Airways Corporation

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 19-2139
CLAUDIA DE LA CRUZ-CANDELA and LILA PEGUERO-DE LA CRUZ,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION and
PRIMEFLIGHT AVIATION SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Camille L. Vélez-Rivé, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
Before
Howard, Chief Judge,
Selya and Kayatta, Circuit Judges.
Javier A. Rivera Vaquer and Rivera Mercado & Rivera Cordero
on brief for appellants.
Margarita Rosado-Toledo and Colón & Colón, P.S.C. on brief
for appellees.
November 20, 2020
SELYA, Circuit Judge. The plaintiffs, Claudia De La
Cruz-Candela (an eighty-seven-year-old woman) and her adult
daughter, Lila Peguero-De La Cruz, flew from the Dominican Republic
to Puerto Rico on a commercial airliner operated by defendant-
appellee JetBlue Airways Corporation (JetBlue). The airplane
departed from the Dominican Republic on April 1, 2016, and landed
later that day at the Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport (the
Airport) in Carolina, Puerto Rico.
The plaintiffs, who had asked JetBlue for a wheelchair
for Claudia's use, were among the last passengers to disembark.
When they reached the jet bridge, they learned that the wheelchair
they had ordered had been commandeered by another passenger. After
the plaintiffs spoke with the flight attendant, another wheelchair
was ordered.1
The plaintiffs waited at the jet bridge for about ten
minutes, but grew impatient. They decided to walk to the customs
area of the Airport. They chose the route that they would take.
Along the way, they stepped onto an escalator. A mishap occurred
on the escalator (approximately ten minutes after the plaintiffs
left the jet bridge), and both plaintiffs were injured.
1 At the Airport, wheelchair service is provided by an
independent contractor, PrimeFlight Aviation Services, Inc.
(PrimeFlight).
- 2 -
There is nothing in the record indicating that either
JetBlue or PrimeFlight had any dominion or control over the
escalator. Nor is there anything indicating that either firm had
any responsibility for the escalator's maintenance.
We fast-forward to March 31, 2017, when the plaintiffs,
invoking diversity jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), brought
suit in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto
Rico. They named as defendants both JetBlue and PrimeFlight. The
parties agreed to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. Following the close of discovery,
the defendants filed a joint motion for summary judgment. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The plaintiffs opposed the motion, but the
magistrate judge granted summary judgment in the defendants'
favor. See De La Cruz-Candela v. JetBlue Airways Corp., No. 17-
1418, slip op. at 20 (D.P.R. Sept. 23, 2019) (unpublished). This
timely appeal ensued.
We often have written words to the effect that when a
nisi prius court has "supportably found the facts, applied the
appropriate legal standards, articulated [its] reasoning clearly,
and reached a correct result, a reviewing court ought not to write
at length merely to hear its own words resonate." deBenedictis v.
Brady-Zell (In re Brady-Zell), 756 F.3d 69, 71 (1st Cir. 2014);
see, e.g., United States v. Wetmore, 812 F.3d 245, 248 (1st Cir.
2016); Moses v. Mele, 711 F.3d 213, 215-16 (1st Cir. 2013); Eaton
- 3 -
v. Penn-Am. Ins. Co., 626 F.3d 113, 114 (1st Cir. 2010); Vargas-
Ruiz v. Golden Arch Dev., Inc., 368 F.3d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 2004);
Seaco Ins. Co. v. Davis-Irish, 300 F.3d 84, 86 (1st Cir. 2002);
Ayala v. Union de Tronquistas de P.R., Local 901, 74 F.3d 344, 345
(1st Cir. 1996); Holders Cap. Corp. v. Cal. Union Ins. Co. (In re
San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig.), 989 F.2d 36, 38 (1st
Cir. 1993). This is such a case.
The substantive law of Puerto Rico supplies the rules of
decision in this diversity action. See Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins,
304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938). On appeal, the facts must be viewed
through the lens of the summary judgment standard, under which we
"consider[] the record and all reasonable inferences therefrom in
the light most hospitable to the summary judgment loser." Houlton
Citizens' Coal. v. Town of Houlton, 175 F.3d 178, 184 (1st Cir.
1999). Here, the magistrate judge faithfully applied Puerto Rico
law to the undisputed facts to conclude that the plaintiffs had
failed to show either the breach of an actionable duty or proximate
causation. The record fully supports this conclusion: it was the
plaintiffs' unilateral decision not to wait for a replacement
wheelchair to arrive, and there is no probative evidence that
either of the defendants breached any legally owed duty with
respect to the provision of the replacement wheelchair.2 Nor is
2 The record indicates that the replacement wheelchair was en
route to the jet bridge when the accident occurred. So, too, the
- 4 -
there any probative evidence that the acts or omissions of either
defendant proximately caused the plaintiffs' injuries.
We need go no further. Although the plaintiffs' plight
evokes sympathetic reaction from anyone familiar with the
vicissitudes of modern-day air travel, the plaintiffs have failed
to show an entitlement to the damages that they seek. Therefore,
we summarily affirm the judgment below for essentially the reasons
elucidated in the district court's well-reasoned rescript.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).
record indicates that — due to security concerns, restrictions on
international travel, and the configuration of the Airport —
PrimeFlight had to take a circuitous path from the facility where
wheelchairs were kept to the gate where the plaintiffs' flight
landed.
- 5 -