Opinion
Civil No. 04-1351 (SEC/GAG).
March 28, 2005
Nicolas Nogueras-Cartagena, Esq. and Francisco Troncoso-Cortes, Esq., San Juan, Puerto Rico, Plaintiff or Petitioner.
Raul Malave Castellanos, Esq. and Luis Martinez Llorens, Esq., San Juan, Puerto Rico, Defendant or Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
The Puerto Rico Highway Authority and Pep Boys-Manny, Moe Jack of Puerto Rico, Inc. have moved to dismiss the complaint against them on grounds similar to those of the Municipality of San Juan. See Docket Nos. 86 and 89, respectively. The Court hereby GRANTS said motions for the reasons set forth below. More so, the Court's grounds for dismissal likewise extend to the remaining codefendants, PRASA and Ondeo de Puerto Rico, Inc., and, as such, this entire consolidated case must be dismissed.
Even though PRASA and Ondeo have not yet moved for the dismissal of the claims brought against them, this Court can note jurisdictional defects moto propio. See Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie de Bauxites de Guinee 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982); Espinal Domínguez v. Commonwealth of PuertoRico. 352 F. 3d 490, 495 (1st Cir. 2003). See also Miguel Velázquez Rivera and Jorge Velázquez Hernández, Curso Escrito Sobre Jurisdicción Federal, Vol. 1 at 11 (2000 ed.) (noting that lack of jurisdiction may be raised by Court at any time).
In its March 2, 2005 order dismissing the plaintiffs' Section 1983 cause of action against the Municipality of San Juan, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2005 WL 517574 (D.P.R. 2005), the Court reasoned that (i) plaintiff's tort cause of action does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation, and, (ii) the receipt of federal funds by defendants does not create an implied cause of action. The Court now concludes this ruling must likewise extend to the other remaining codefendants.
On March 22, 2005, our Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds of a tort case which attempted to make its way into the federal forum in the guise of a Section 1983 action. See Rivera v. Rhode Island, ___ F. 3d ___, 2005 WL 647033 (1st Cir. 2005). In said case, the decedent was a government witness in a criminal case. She was murdered to prevent a successful prosecution. The murderer was subsequently apprehended and convicted. Thereafter, the decedent's family brought suit in federal court, alleging a due process violation due to the fact the state failed to protect her, having promised to do so. The Court found such factual scenario as not being "shocking to the conscience" so as to rise to the level of constitutional tort. Id. at * 6-8.
The Rivera opinion further buttresses this Court's earlier opinion, which was also issued at the 12(b)(6) stage. In dismissing this lawsuit for lack of a federal claim, however, this Court echoes the First Circuit's remarks to the effect that "[i]t would be inhumane not to feel a sense of outrage over [the minor's] death, or a sense of deep sympathy for [his family members]. But [the] question is one of federal law, not one of sympathy. " Id. at 1.
Accordingly, all federal claims against all remaining federal defendants (Pep Boys, Puerto Rico Highway Authority, PRASA and Ondeo) are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 (b)(6). The plaintiffs' claims under Commonwealth law against these codefendants, as well as against any possible supplemental party defendant(s) (i.e., the Municipality of San Juan) are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 1367 (c)(3). As the First Circuit held in Rivera, "[w]hether the plaintiff has some recompense under the law of [Puerto Rico] is another matter for [the local court system] to decide. Whatever recompense there can be to [plaintiffs] it is not to be found in this case." Id. at 1.
Finally, the Court reasserts its earlier ruling to the effect that the receipt of federal funds in this instance does not create an implied private cause of action for personal injuries caused by the recipient(s) of said monies. See Smith v. Bernier, 701 F. Supp. 1171, 1173-74 (D. Md. 1988).
Federal Courts have a virtually unflagging duty to assert their jurisdiction where the same exists. Colorado Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976); Rio Grande Community Health Center v. Rullan, 397 F. 3d 56, 68 (1st Cir. 2005). Here, however, it is evident that federal jurisdiction is lacking, even when the pleadings are taken in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. This case, thus, must be DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.