Pejcic v. RC Hotels Mgmt.

1

DUSICA PEJCIC, Plaintiff, v. RC HOTEL MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant.

No. 3:19-cv-01777-JAW

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico

August 22, 2022

ORDER ON JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY

JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

The Court concludes that under Puerto Rico law where there are two potential joint tortfeasors causing the same damage, and where the plaintiff impleaded only one, and where the statute of limitation expired on the other, the trial court must fix the percentage of responsibility for each tortfeasor impleaded and unimpleaded, and the plaintiff's recovery will be limited to the percentage of liability fixed against the impleaded defendant. The Court leaves for later determination whether the impleaded tortfeasor had the obligation to implead the heirs of the deceased unimpleaded tortfeasor and whether the statute of limitations has run on claims against those heirs.

I. BACKGROUND

On October 10, 2018, Dusica Pejcic filed suit against a hotel^[1] in the Condado District of San Juan Puerto Rico, alleging it was negligent in providing security for her when she stayed at the LeConsulat Hotel on July 27, 2018. Compl. (ECF No. 1).

The Complaint alleges a harrowing incident in which a man, later identified as Luis Villoda Soto, who was not a guest at Le Consulat, entered the lobby of the hotel, brandished a firearm, kidnapped Ms. Pejcic, another female, and a male, forced them into Ms. Pejcic's hotel room, kept them as hostages for hours, and sexually assaulted Ms. Pejcic and the other female in her presence. Second Am. Compl. ¶ 13 (ECF No. 31) (Second Am. Compl.). Ms. Pejcic was ultimately able to escape, running nude down the hotel corridors with Mr. Villoda Soto in pursuit. Id. ¶ 14. A shootout ensued between Mr. Villoda Soto and the police, and the police shot Mr. Villoda Soto dead. Am. Joint Pretrial Order at 7 (ECF No. 234). Ms. Pejcic claims physical and emotional injuries, medical expenses, lost wages, and lost earning capacity because of this incident. Second Am. Compl. ¶ 47.

At a video status conference on July 12, 2022, RC Hotel noted that Ms. Pejcic failed to implead Mr. Villoda Soto as a defendant in this case and RC Hotel contended that under Puerto Rico law, when one defendant is legally impeded from pursuing another joint tortfeasor, the court must award only those damages attributable to the impleaded defendant and must separate out the damages attributable to the unimpleaded joint tortfeasor. RC Hotel argued that the statute of limitations had run against the estate of Mr. Villoda Soto and therefore RC Hotel is barred from proceeding against his estate, depriving RC Hotel of its right of contribution. Counsel for Ms. Pejcic emphatically rejected these propositions. In response to this controversy, the Court ordered counsel to file memoranda of law. Interim Order at 34 (ECF No. 228). On July 27, 2022, Ms. Pejcic filed her memorandum of law. Pl.'s Mem. of Law on Joint and Several Liability (ECF No. 232) (Pl.'s Mem.). On August 11, 2022, RC Hotel responded. Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Mem. of Law on Joint and Several Liability (ECF No. 233) (Def.'s Mem.). On August 15, 2022, Ms. Pejcic filed her reply memorandum. Pl.'s Reply to Def.'s Resp. to Mem. of Law on Joint and Several Liability (ECF No. 237) (Pl.'s Reply). On August 19, 2022, Ms. Pejcic filed a supplemental memorandum confirming that no estate has been established for Mr. Villoda Soto under Puerto Rico law because his heirs “if any, . . . have never executed a Declaration of Heir before a Notary Public.” Notice of Filing Suppl. to Pl.'s Mem. of Law on Joint and Several Liability [DE 232] and Reply [DE237] (ECF No. 241).

II. THE PARTIES' POSITIONS

A. Dusica Pejcic's Memorandum

Ms. Pejcic reviews the heightened standard of care Puerto Rico law imposes on a hotel to provide security for its guests. Pl.'s Mem. at 2-3. She notes that, in contrast, the assailant did not owe her a heightened duty of care under the Puerto Rico Civil Code. Id. at 3. She then points out that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a), RC Hotel had the right, had it chosen to do so, to implead Mr. Villoda Soto's estate. Id. at 5-7. Ms. Pejcic says that RC Hotel may not now benefit from its decision not to implead a liable third party's estate by reducing its joint and several liability for damages it caused her by its negligence. Id. at 7.

Ms. Pejcic further maintains that Mr. Villoda Soto and RC Hotel are not joint tortfeasors. Id. at 7-10. Mr. Villoda Soto's liability arises from his cruel and inhumane actions against Ms. Pejcic. Id. at 8. In Ms. Pejcic's view, RC Hotel's liability flows from its distinct legal obligation to prevent harm to its hotel guests when such harm was reasonably foreseeable and should have been prevented by security measures that the hotel failed to adopt. Id. at 8-10. Thus, in Ms. Pejcic's view, RC Hotel's liability is “separate and apart” from Mr. Villoda Soto's liability. Id. at 8. Furthermore, RC Hotel had the right of contribution against Mr. Villoda Soto's estate. Id. at 8-10.

Ms. Pejcic also contends that RC Hotel was incorrect when it asserted that the statute of limitations has run against the estate of Mr. Villoda Soto. Id. at 10-12. Ms. Pejcic says that the statute of limitations against Mr. Villoda Soto would start when his heirs accepted their inheritance and thus the liability for the damages sustained by Ms. Pejcic. Id. at 12. In fact, Ms. Pejcic notes there is no evidence that Mr. Villoda Soto had any heirs or, if he did, that they accepted anything from the estate. Id. Ms. Pejcic says that heirs for a small estate will often reject their inheritance to avoid responsibility for damages caused by the deceased. Id. Finally, if RC Hotel wished to file an action against Mr. Villoda Soto's estate, it could have done so within the one-year statute of limitations period. Id.

B. RC Hotel's Memorandum

In response, RC Hotel asserts that (1) Puerto Rico law places the burden on the injured party to implead all known tortfeasors to toll the statute of limitations, (2) Ms. Pejcic failed to implead the known tortfeasor, Luis Villoda Soto and/or his heirs within the one-year statute of limitations period, (3) the Court must instruct the jury to apportion liability between Mr. Villoda Soto and the hotel, and (4) the Court must reduce any damage award by the percentage of responsibility attributed to Mr. Villoda Soto. Def.'s Mem. at 1-2. RC Hotel states that the Puerto Rico Supreme Court case of Fraguada Bonilla v. Hospital Auxilio Mutuo, 186 D.P.R. 365 (2012), established that the “timely filing of a complaint against an alleged joint tortfeasor does not toll the statute of limitations against the rest of the alleged joint tortfeasors.” Def.'s Mem. at 3 (quoting Fraguada, 186 D.P.R. at 389). Next, RC Hotel points to Adria Maldonado Rivera v. Carlos Suarez, 195 D.P.R. 182 (2016) for the proposition that once a statute of limitations has run against a joint tortfeasor not timely impleaded by a plaintiff, an impleaded defendant may not implead the joint tortfeasor for contribution. Def.'s Mem. at 4-5. RC Hotel maintains that the combination of these two cases means that if a plaintiff fails to timely file an action against a third-party joint tortfeasor, the plaintiff has “implicitly release[d] that joint tortfeasor from liability.” Id. RC Hotel rejects the notion that a defendant has the obligation to assure that other joint tortfeasors are timely sued. Id. at 5-6.

Moreover, RC Hotel maintains that Maldonado Rivera stands for the proposition that if a plaintiff fails to timely implead a joint tortfeasor, the trial court must apportion the damages among the impleaded and unimpleaded joint tortfeasors and deduct from the plaintiff's award the percentage of damages caused by the unimpleaded joint tortfeasors. Id. at 6-7.

C. Dusica Pejcic's Reply

In her August 15, 2022, reply, Dusica Pejcic further explained her view that the statute of limitations against Luis Villoda Soto's unknown heirs has not yet begun to run. Pl.'s Reply at 1-2. Next, Ms. Pejcic expanded her argument that RC Hotel had the obligation to implead the heirs of Mr. Villoda Soto. Id. at 2-3.

III. DISCUSSION

Preliminarily, the Court observes that as its jurisdiction over this case is based on diversity of citizenship, the Court applies the substantive law of the jurisdiction and the procedural rules of the federal courts. Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938); Alexandre v. Nat'l Union First Ins. Co., 22 F.4th 261, 271 (1st Cir. 2022) (“[W]ith diversity cases, federalism commands that federal judges apply state substantive law exactly as a state court would”). “In Puerto Rico, the statute of limitations is a substantive and not a procedural matter,” Alejandro-Ortiz v. P.R. Elec. Power Auth., 756 F.3d 23, 26 (1st Cir. 2014), and therefore its proper application in this case is a matter of Puerto Rico substantive law.

A. Tolling of the Statute of Limitations: Fraguada Bonilla

Under Puerto Rico law, the statute of limitations for a civil action based on fault or negligence is one year. See Fraguada Bonilla, 186 D.P.R. at 374 (citing 31 L.P.R.A. §§ 5141, 5298). As the incident occurred on July 27, 2018, the one-year statute of limitations period lapsed on July 27, 2019.

Based on the caselaw presented by the parties, the Court observes that in 2012, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court in Fraguada Bonilla declared a new prospective rule for the tolling of statutes of limitations in situations “when damage is caused by the concurrent negligence of several people.” Id. at 375. Under prior caselaw, once a plaintiff sued one person, the statute of limitations was tolled as against other potentially negligent people. Id. at 372 (des...