Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter 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 
- 2 - 

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 defendantappellee 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). 
- 3 - 

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 
- 4 - 

v. Penn-Am. Ins. Co., 626 F.3d 113, 114 (1st Cir. 2010); VargasRuiz 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 
- 5 - 

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.