Aviles v. Sol Melia V.C. Puerto Rico Corporation

D. Puerto Rico

Aviles v. Sol Melia V.C. Puerto Rico Corporation

DecidedDecember 30, 2020

Docket3:20-cv-01146

StatusUnknown

This text of Aviles v. Sol Melia V.C. Puerto Rico Corporation (Aviles v. Sol Melia V.C. Puerto Rico Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Puerto Rico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aviles v. Sol Melia V.C. Puerto Rico Corporation, (prd 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 2

ADRIANA AVILÉS, et al. 3 4 Plaintiffs, 5 v. 6 SOL MELIA V.C. PUERTO RICO CASE NO. 20-1146 (GAG) CORP., et al. 7 Defendants. 8

9 MEMORANDUM ORDER 10 Adriana Avilés, Isaac Serrano-Muñiz, James A. Harnar, John A. Napoli-Romero, 11 Jay Grevers, Luis W. Prosper, and Dr. Goar Blanco, on behalf of themselves and the 12 putative class, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Sol Meliá V.C. Puerto Rico Corp. 13 14 (“Sol Meliá PR”), Meliá Hotels International, S.A., (“Meliá International”), and Coco 15 Condominium 1, LCC (“Coco”) (collectively, “Defendants”) before the Puerto Rico Court 16 of First Instance seeking redress for injuries that principally occurred outside of Puerto 17 Rico. (Docket No. 1-1). Plaintiffs plead having lost access to their timeshare membership 18 and benefits, including the Meliá Brand, Hotel Meliá in Puerto Rico, and all clubs and 19 affiliates of Meliá International around the world. (Docket Nos. 1-1 at 40-42).1 Defendants 20 21 removed Plaintiffs’ complaint to this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441; 1446; 1453. 22 23 1 These allegations were also included in the Amended Complaint filed with prior leave of this Court. 24 (Docket Nos. 80; 81 at 8-9). 1 (Docket No. 1). Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ motions for remand. (Docket Nos. 2 14; 83; 102). 3 After the conclusion of jurisdictional discovery, Plaintiffs filed a third motion to 4 remand arguing that, according to the timeshare contracts reviewed, more than two-thirds 5 of the proposed class are residents of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and hence, satisfy 6 7 said requirement of the Class Action Fairness Act “local controversy” exception, 28 U.S.C. 8 § 1332(d)(3). (Docket No. 102). In opposition, Defendants posit that: (1) “residency” does 9 not equate to “citizenship” for jurisdictional purposes; (2) the “years old” addresses used 10 by Plaintiffs fail to accurately determine “citizenship,” and (3) even if these addresses were 11 to be valid, the percentage calculations at the time of removal (March 2020), as proffered 12 by Defendants, fall below the two-thirds requirements. (Docket No. 112). With leave of 13 14 Court, a reply and sur-reply were filed thereafter. (Docket Nos. 116; 121). 15 Having reviewed the parties’ submissions and applicable law, the Court finds that 16 Defendants have successfully met the burden for removal. See Amoche v. Guarantee Tr. 17 Life Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 41, 48 (1st Cir. 2009). By the same token, Plaintiffs have failed to 18 establish that neither the “local controversy” nor the “discretionary” exception applies in 19 this case. See In re Hannaford Bros. Co. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 564 F.3d 75 20 21 (1st Cir. 2009); González v. Banco Santander, S.A., Civil No. 16-2868 (CCC), 2017 WL 22 5957735 (D.P.R. 2017). Thus, the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter, 23 pursuant to CAFA, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d)(2). 24 1 I. Discussion 2 After assessing the documentary evidence produced during the jurisdictional 3 discovery, the Court agrees with Defendants’ position at Docket Nos. 112 and 121. 4 Regardless of the fact that Defendants somewhat altered their initial legal theory, Plaintiffs 5 fail to put this Court in a position to apply a statutory exception and remand the case to the 6 7 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico courts. See González, 2017 WL 5957735 at *2 (D.P.R. 2017) 8 (“CAFA’s language favors federal jurisdiction over class actions and CAFA’s legislative 9 history suggests that Congress intended the local controversy exception to be a narrow 10 one, with all doubts resolved in favor of exercising jurisdiction over the case.”) (internal quotation 11 marks omitted) (emphasis added). 12 Defendants effectively challenge Plaintiffs’ percentage calculations and advance 13 14 that past “residency” addresses —including hundreds of PO BOX addresses— are 15 insufficient to establish domicile/citizenship at the time of removal. (Docket Nos. 112 at 16 10; 112-1; 112-2). The Court agrees with this analysis. See Aponte-Dávila v. Municipality 17 of Caguas, 828 F.3d 40, 49 (1st Cir. 2016); McMorris v. TJX Companies, Inc., 493 F. Supp. 18 2d 158, 162-63 (D. Mass. 2007); Brown v. St.-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., Civil No. 19 16-242 (JL), 2016 WL 6996136, at *6 (D.N.H. 2016). 20 21 Plaintiff’s original complaint —filed in Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Fajardo 22 Superior Court— alleged that the main injuries occurred outside of Puerto Rico because 23 Plaintiffs plead that they have lost access to timeshare benefits in other jurisdictions. 24 1 (Docket Nos. 1 at 4; 1-1 at 42; 32 at 10; 85 at 8-9). The fact that the matter before this Court 2 involves national and international interests further supports the Court’s decision not to 3 apply CAFA’s “local controversy” and “discretionary” exceptions. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 4 1332(d)(3); 1332(d)(4)(A)(III). 5 Turning to Plaintiffs’ argument that the timeshare contracts have a forum selection 6 7 clause which precludes federal jurisdiction (Docket No. 14 at 6-7), the Court holds that this 8 clause cannot be enforced against all Defendants and does not necessarily deprive federal 9 courts of jurisdiction. See Afunday Charters, Inc. v. Spencer Yachts, Inc., 261 F. Supp. 3d 10 257, 265 (D.P.R. 2017); see also Bancredito Int’l Bank Corp. v. Data Hardware Supp., Inc., 11 Civil No. 18-1005 (CCC) 2018 WL 6443985, at *2-5 (D.P.R. 2018). Nevertheless, even if it 12 could be applied to all Defendants, the parties have failed to submit evidence indicating 13 14 that they have exhausted the administrative procedures contemplated in the clause. 15 (Docket No. 32 at 14). 16 On a final note, the Court admonishes the parties’ unreasonable and careless 17 representations to Court and among themselves. See e.g. Docket Nos. 100, 104, 107, 108, 18 116, 121. These constitute borderline sanctionable conduct under FED. R. CIV. P. 11 and 28 19 U.S.C. § 1927. See Lamboy-Ortiz v. Ortiz-Vélez, 630 F.3d 228, 245 (1st Cir. 2010); Cruz v. 20 21 Savage, 896 F.2d 626, 630 (1st Cir. 1990). Moving forward, the parties shall behave and 22 speak civilly, showing the utmost respect and decorum as mandated by the undersigned’s 23 Standing “Code of Civility” adopted precisely “to encourage all participants in cases before 24 1 the Court to meet their legal and ethical obligations to each other, to litigants and to the system of 2 justice, thereby achieving the twin goals of civility and professionalism, both of which are hallmarks 3 of a learned profession dedicated to public service.” (Docket No. 4-5 at 1) (emphasis in original). 4 II. Conclusion 5 For the reasons stated above, the pending Motion to Remand to State Court Urgent 6 Motion to Remand (Docket No. 14); Motion Requesting Discretionary Remand (Docket 7 8 No. 83), and Motion to Remand to State Court for Lack of Jurisdiction under CAFA 9 (Docket No. 102) are DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 2

ADRIANA AVILÉS, et al. 3 4 Plaintiffs, 5 v. 6 SOL MELIA V.C. PUERTO RICO CASE NO. 20-1146 (GAG) CORP., et al. 7 Defendants. 8

9 MEMORANDUM ORDER 10 Adriana Avilés, Isaac Serrano-Muñiz, James A. Harnar, John A. Napoli-Romero, 11 Jay Grevers, Luis W. Prosper, and Dr. Goar Blanco, on behalf of themselves and the 12 putative class, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Sol Meliá V.C. Puerto Rico Corp. 13 14 (“Sol Meliá PR”), Meliá Hotels International, S.A., (“Meliá International”), and Coco 15 Condominium 1, LCC (“Coco”) (collectively, “Defendants”) before the Puerto Rico Court 16 of First Instance seeking redress for injuries that principally occurred outside of Puerto 17 Rico. (Docket No. 1-1). Plaintiffs plead having lost access to their timeshare membership 18 and benefits, including the Meliá Brand, Hotel Meliá in Puerto Rico, and all clubs and 19 affiliates of Meliá International around the world. (Docket Nos. 1-1 at 40-42).1 Defendants 20 21 removed Plaintiffs’ complaint to this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441; 1446; 1453. 22 23 1 These allegations were also included in the Amended Complaint filed with prior leave of this Court. 24 (Docket Nos. 80; 81 at 8-9). 1 (Docket No. 1). Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ motions for remand. (Docket Nos. 2 14; 83; 102). 3 After the conclusion of jurisdictional discovery, Plaintiffs filed a third motion to 4 remand arguing that, according to the timeshare contracts reviewed, more than two-thirds 5 of the proposed class are residents of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and hence, satisfy 6 7 said requirement of the Class Action Fairness Act “local controversy” exception, 28 U.S.C. 8 § 1332(d)(3). (Docket No. 102). In opposition, Defendants posit that: (1) “residency” does 9 not equate to “citizenship” for jurisdictional purposes; (2) the “years old” addresses used 10 by Plaintiffs fail to accurately determine “citizenship,” and (3) even if these addresses were 11 to be valid, the percentage calculations at the time of removal (March 2020), as proffered 12 by Defendants, fall below the two-thirds requirements. (Docket No. 112). With leave of 13 14 Court, a reply and sur-reply were filed thereafter. (Docket Nos. 116; 121). 15 Having reviewed the parties’ submissions and applicable law, the Court finds that 16 Defendants have successfully met the burden for removal. See Amoche v. Guarantee Tr. 17 Life Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 41, 48 (1st Cir. 2009). By the same token, Plaintiffs have failed to 18 establish that neither the “local controversy” nor the “discretionary” exception applies in 19 this case. See In re Hannaford Bros. Co. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 564 F.3d 75 20 21 (1st Cir. 2009); González v. Banco Santander, S.A., Civil No. 16-2868 (CCC), 2017 WL 22 5957735 (D.P.R. 2017). Thus, the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter, 23 pursuant to CAFA, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d)(2). 24 1 I. Discussion 2 After assessing the documentary evidence produced during the jurisdictional 3 discovery, the Court agrees with Defendants’ position at Docket Nos. 112 and 121. 4 Regardless of the fact that Defendants somewhat altered their initial legal theory, Plaintiffs 5 fail to put this Court in a position to apply a statutory exception and remand the case to the 6 7 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico courts. See González, 2017 WL 5957735 at *2 (D.P.R. 2017) 8 (“CAFA’s language favors federal jurisdiction over class actions and CAFA’s legislative 9 history suggests that Congress intended the local controversy exception to be a narrow 10 one, with all doubts resolved in favor of exercising jurisdiction over the case.”) (internal quotation 11 marks omitted) (emphasis added). 12 Defendants effectively challenge Plaintiffs’ percentage calculations and advance 13 14 that past “residency” addresses —including hundreds of PO BOX addresses— are 15 insufficient to establish domicile/citizenship at the time of removal. (Docket Nos. 112 at 16 10; 112-1; 112-2). The Court agrees with this analysis. See Aponte-Dávila v. Municipality 17 of Caguas, 828 F.3d 40, 49 (1st Cir. 2016); McMorris v. TJX Companies, Inc., 493 F. Supp. 18 2d 158, 162-63 (D. Mass. 2007); Brown v. St.-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., Civil No. 19 16-242 (JL), 2016 WL 6996136, at *6 (D.N.H. 2016). 20 21 Plaintiff’s original complaint —filed in Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Fajardo 22 Superior Court— alleged that the main injuries occurred outside of Puerto Rico because 23 Plaintiffs plead that they have lost access to timeshare benefits in other jurisdictions. 24 1 (Docket Nos. 1 at 4; 1-1 at 42; 32 at 10; 85 at 8-9). The fact that the matter before this Court 2 involves national and international interests further supports the Court’s decision not to 3 apply CAFA’s “local controversy” and “discretionary” exceptions. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 4 1332(d)(3); 1332(d)(4)(A)(III). 5 Turning to Plaintiffs’ argument that the timeshare contracts have a forum selection 6 7 clause which precludes federal jurisdiction (Docket No. 14 at 6-7), the Court holds that this 8 clause cannot be enforced against all Defendants and does not necessarily deprive federal 9 courts of jurisdiction. See Afunday Charters, Inc. v. Spencer Yachts, Inc., 261 F. Supp. 3d 10 257, 265 (D.P.R. 2017); see also Bancredito Int’l Bank Corp. v. Data Hardware Supp., Inc., 11 Civil No. 18-1005 (CCC) 2018 WL 6443985, at *2-5 (D.P.R. 2018). Nevertheless, even if it 12 could be applied to all Defendants, the parties have failed to submit evidence indicating 13 14 that they have exhausted the administrative procedures contemplated in the clause. 15 (Docket No. 32 at 14). 16 On a final note, the Court admonishes the parties’ unreasonable and careless 17 representations to Court and among themselves. See e.g. Docket Nos. 100, 104, 107, 108, 18 116, 121. These constitute borderline sanctionable conduct under FED. R. CIV. P. 11 and 28 19 U.S.C. § 1927. See Lamboy-Ortiz v. Ortiz-Vélez, 630 F.3d 228, 245 (1st Cir. 2010); Cruz v. 20 21 Savage, 896 F.2d 626, 630 (1st Cir. 1990). Moving forward, the parties shall behave and 22 speak civilly, showing the utmost respect and decorum as mandated by the undersigned’s 23 Standing “Code of Civility” adopted precisely “to encourage all participants in cases before 24 1 the Court to meet their legal and ethical obligations to each other, to litigants and to the system of 2 justice, thereby achieving the twin goals of civility and professionalism, both of which are hallmarks 3 of a learned profession dedicated to public service.” (Docket No. 4-5 at 1) (emphasis in original). 4 II. Conclusion 5 For the reasons stated above, the pending Motion to Remand to State Court Urgent 6 Motion to Remand (Docket No. 14); Motion Requesting Discretionary Remand (Docket 7 8 No. 83), and Motion to Remand to State Court for Lack of Jurisdiction under CAFA 9 (Docket No. 102) are DENIED. The pending Joint Motion to Stay Term to File Answer to 10 Amend Complaint or Otherwise Plead (Docket No. 82) and Joint Motion In Compliance as 11 to 101 Order on Informative Motion (Docket No. 108) are NOTED. As a result, Defendants 12 have thirty (30) days to file an answer to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint or otherwise 13 14 plead at Docket No. 81. 15 SO ORDERED. 16 In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 30th day of December, 2020. 17 s/ Gustavo A. Gelpí 18 GUSTAVO A. GELPI United States District Judge 19

20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Aviles v. Sol Melia V.C. Puerto Rico Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aviles-v-sol-melia-vc-puerto-rico-corporation-prd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack