Supreme Court
No. 202 3

- 141

- Appeal. No. 202 3

- 162

- Appeal. (PC 10

- 2 433 )
Dania Mateo :

v. : Davidson Media Group Rhode Island Stations , LLC , et al

. :

NOTICE : This opinion is subject to formal revisio n before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter . Readers are request ed to notify the Opinion Analys t, Supreme C ourt of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02903, at Te le phone (401) 222

- 3258 or Email opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov, o f any typographical or other formal errors in ord er that correct ions ma y be made before the opinion is published

.- 1

- Supreme Court
No. 202 3

- 141

- Appeal. No. 202 3

- 162

- Appeal. (PC 10

- 2 433 )
Dania Mateo :

v. : Davidson Media Group Rhode Island Stations , LLC , et al

. :

P resent: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, and Robinso n , J J

.

O P I N I O N
J us tice Robinson , for the Court. The plaintiff, Dania Mateo, appeals from a September 6, 2022 order entered in Prov i d ence County Superior Court , granting partial summary judgment in favo r o f the def endants, Maggie Giraud, Fel i x Per e z, Ces ar S alas, Quilv i o Perdomo, and Jane or John Doe with res pect to a complaint consisting of twenty

- two counts

. T h e plaintiff contend s that the grant of partial summary judgment should be vacated, arguing that the hearing justice erred (amon g other reasons) because : (1) there r emained genuine issue s of materi al f ac t in dispute; (2) his ruling that the plaintiff had not pr offered compet e nt evidence to

su p port her civil conspiracy claim was erroneous ; a nd (3) the Do e defe nda nts were improperly dismissed

.- 2

-

Very sign ificantly , defendants cross

- appeal from the entry o f partial final judg m ent p ursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Sup erior Court Rules of Ci vil P rocedure (entered on January 24 , 2023 ) , asserting that the hearing justice erred in granting plaintiff ’ s motion for the entry of partial final judgment be caus e he failed to make
an express d e ter minat ion tha t there was no just reason for delay

. Th e in s tant appeal and cross
- appeal came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and sho w caus e why the issues
raised there in s h ould not be summarily decided. After consideri ng the parti es’
written and o ral submi ss ions an d a ft er carefully reviewing the record, we conclude
that cause has not bee n shown and that these appeals may be decided wi thout
f urther briefing or argument.
F o r the reaso ns set f

o rth hereina fter , it is our opinion that defendants ’

cross
- appeal is meritori o us and that the January 24 , 2023 partial fin al judgment
must be vacated and the case remanded t o the S u perior Court for further proceedings. For that rea son, we do not r each the issues rais ed in plaintiff ’ s appeal.- 3

- I
Facts and Travel In setting forth the sequence of events which form the bas is of thi s a ction , we rely on the August 31 , 20 22 and Ja nuary 17 , 20 23 bench decisions of the hearing j ustice an d ot h er document s contained in the r ecord

. On April 23, 201 0, 1 pl ain tiff filed a tw enty

- two

- c ount complaint against
Da v idson Media Group R ho de Islan d Stations , LLC (Davidson ) and several of its employees , a lleging violations of the R h ode I sland Fair Emp loyme n t Practices Act (RIFEPA) and the Rhode I s land Civil Rights Act (RICRA)

. That r ather proli x

co mplaint also contained several allegations of s e xu al harassment , liability un der
the doctrine of re spondeat superior , civil c ons piracy , inten tional inflic tion of
emoti onal distr ess, negligent infliction of emotional di s t ress , assault and battery, negligenc e, fa lse impr isonment, def amation, and consp ira cy to commit defama tion

. The factual cru x of this case i s that, on or about Janu ary 20, 2 008, plaintiff
was hi red as an “ on air ra dio personality ” for the morning show broadcast by
Davidson ( Latina 100. 3 )

. On that morning show, plaintiff played a fictitious

1 We have bee n unable to find anythi ng in the r ecor d that constitutes a n adequate jus tification for the extremely long p endency of this particu lar civ i l action , which has been pending in the Superior Court for almost fourteen years

. See Greensleeves, Inc. v. Smiley , 94 2 A.2d 284, 294 n. 19 (R.I. 2007) ( “ It ap pears to us that t h is case has taken on a life of i ts own; we can perceive no sufficient r eason w hy this parti cula r litigation did not come to an en d long ago. * * * We find the long pendency of this case to be truly regrettable * * *.”)

.- 4

-

“ scripted character ” named “ Anaconda

. ” She f urthe r alleged that th e morning
show included other fictitious characters

— including but not limited to “ El Baron ” ( played by Darvin G a

rcia, who was p la in t i ff ’ s “ dire ct morning show su perv isor ” a s well as “ a person who [plaintiff] had been previously roman t ic ally invol ved with ” ). The plaintiff alleged that Cesar Salas , who was at that time the “ Director of
Sales ” at Davidson , sexually harassed h er ; s he f urt her purpo rt ed to have reported
th at alleged harassment to M r . Garcia and to Joseph Rizza, who w as the “ North East Reg ional Manager

. ” According to plaintiff ’ s complaint, “ Davidson compelled all employees to have a se xu al harassment seminar

. ” H owe ve r , sh e further alleged that , in sp ite of this train ing, the se x ual harassment of her
continued

. T he p la intiff also alleged that , at some later point, both Mr. Garcia and
she were fired and t hat , “ [s]oon thereafter, Sala s and Perdomo, and possibly ot her s ( J ohn or Jane D oe), conspired to lie and stated on the liv e morn ing show broad cast on multiple occasio n s , that [pla intiff ] and G arcia had been fired from Davidson
because they had been caught hav ing sex in the office

. ” According to plaintiff, as

a r esu l t o f w hat she al leged were “ f alse statem ents, ” she “ underwent men tal health

coun seling, at tempted to co m mit suicide, and suffered great economic ha rdship
and em otional distress

. ”
On O ctober 6, 20 10, defend ants mov ed pursua n t to Ru l e 1 2( b)(6) to dismiss
nin ete en of the twenty

- two cou nts of plaintiff ’ s c omplaint for f ailure t o state a- 5

-

claim upon which relief can be granted

. 2 A hearing on defendants ’ motio n to
dismis s was held o n Decem b er 14, 2 010, and a written decision was issued on April 30, 2013

. 3 Th e d eci sion mandated the dismissal of the majority of the counts

se t f orth in pla intif

f ’ s complaint

. 4 How ever, the hea ring justice deni ed d e fen dants ’
motion to dismis s as to C o unts N inet een, Twenty, Twe nty

- One, and Twenty

- T wo
. Five yea rs later , on Janu ary 9, 2018, an order dismissing the RIFEPA cla im against
Mr. Salas ( Count One) was ente red

. C onsequently, as of that t ime, the only si x
counts remai ning wer e the following : R ICRA violations against Mr. Rizza (Count
Four ); RICRA violations against Ms . G irau d (Count Five ); d ef amation against Mr. Salas (Count Nineteen ) ; de famation agains t Mr. Pe rdo mo (Coun t Twenty );
defamation against “ John/Ja ne Doe ” (Count Twe nty

- O ne ); and c onsp ira cy to defame against M r. Perez, Mr. Sala s, Mr. Perdomo , and John Do e (Co unt Twe nty

Two )

. On March 3, 2022, defendants move d for summary jud g ment on Count s Fi ve and Twen ty

- Two as well as for the “ dismissal o f Count s [ Twenty

- O ne ] and

2 The thr e e c ou nts fo r whi ch defe n dants did not se ek dismissal in their 2010 motion to dismiss all eged the follo wing : RIFEPA viola tions a gainst Mr. Sa las (Co u nt One); RICRA violations ag ainst Mr. Rizza ( Count Fou r ); and RICRA violations against M aggie Giraud (Cou nt Fiv e ).

3 The hearing justice who r endered the decisi on on the motion to dismiss in 20 10 was no t the justice who gra nted plaintiff ’ s motion for partial fina l judgment in 2023

.
4 The complaint against Felix Lope z was dismissed in it s entirety.- 6

-

[Twent y - Two] a g ains t John/Jane Doe

. ” On Ju ly 15, 202 2, pla intiff filed an objection to defen dan ts ’ motion for summary judg ment ; a hearing on that motion took pl ac e on Aug ust 31, 2022 , after wh ich t he hearing j ustic e rendered a bench
d ecis i on g ranting defendants ’ motion ; and a n order to that effect entered on
S e ptember 6, 2022, from which order pl aint iff appealed

. On December 2, 202 2 , d efendants fil ed a motion to dismiss plainti ff ’ s app eal on the gro und t hat plainti ff had “ not obtain ed an entr y of partial judgment * * *

. ” The plainti ff filed an obj ection to that mo tion on D ecember 7, 202 2 . The n, o n
Jan uary 6, 2023, plaintiff file d a “ Motion for Entry of Fina l Judgme nt Nunc P ro
T unc , ” to whic h motion d ef endants objected

. A hearing on th at mo t ion took pla ce on January 1 7, 2023

. At the hearing on plaintiff ’ s “ Motion for Entry of Final Judgmen t Nu nc Pro
Tunc , ” co unsel for plainti f f indicate d that p laintiff was asking “ for the Final Judgment to enter [ nun c pro tunc ] for t he pu rposes of perfect i ng [ plaintiff ’ s ] ab ility
to conduct [ plaintiff ’ s ] appeal to the Supreme C o urt

. ” C o unsel for d efendant s ,

c iting Rule 54(b), contended t hat p l aintiff had failed to show that the gra nting of
such partial final judgm ent would be in the interes t of j ustice and th at t here was

“ no reason to delay

. ” Counsel for plaintiff noted that, “ in order for a * * * litiga nt

t o appeal to the Su preme Court, there has t o b e an ent ry of Final Judgment

. ” Th e hearing justi ce agreed, stating tha t he wa s going to grant the motion so t h at- 7

-

p lain tiff could perfect her appeal

. A ju dg ment was entered on January 24, 2 023, providing as f

ollows:

“ Pursuant to the Partial Summary J udgment Granted in favor of the Defendants Sep tember 6, 2022, Final Judgme nt is hereby ente red in favor of Defend a nts, agains t the Plaintiff dismissing Count [ F ive] , against Defendant Maggie Giraud, dismissing Cou nt [Twenty

Two] , against Defendants Perez, Salas an d Perdomo and dismis sing Counts [ T w en t y - One] and [Twenty

- Two] , aga inst the John/Jan e Doe. The Final Judgm e nt i s retro active to September 6 [ th ] , 2022 to allow Pla intiff to perfect her appeal to the Rhod e Is land Supreme Court

. ”
The def endants file d a t imel y notice of appeal on January 26, 2023

. The Court
consoli dated plaintiff ’ s and d efendants ’ appeals on Septe mber 20, 2 023.
I I
Is sues on Appe al
O n appe a l, plaintiff con tends that the hearing just ice erre d in granting partia l summary judgment (1) when he failed to ta ke i nto account that there remained genuine issue s of material fac t in dispute; ( 2) when he ruled that plaintiff ha d not
pr offered compet ent evide nce to s upport her civil conspi rac y claim; a nd (3) when
he improper ly dismiss ed the Doe defe nda nts

. In their c r oss
- appeal, defendants contend that , in light of the cr iteria set forth in Rule 54(b), the hearing justice erre d i n granti ng plaintiff ’ s motion for en tr y of
pa rtial final ju dgm e nt

.- 8

- I II
Ana lysi s
We first addre ss defendants ’ contention s in their cross
- appe a l , since it will
become c lear that we need go no f urther

. T he defendants argue that “ the prerequisites for partial final judgment under
R ule 54(b) ha ve not be en me t ” and tha t “ therefo re [ the ] immedia t e a ppea l should
be denied

. ” The defendants point out that “ [ b]oth th e trans cr i pt and the w ritten
order ” make no mention of “ any exp ress finding that there was no just reason for delay fo r entr y of final judg ment, mu c h less the ba s is for [the hearing jus t i ce ’ s ] ruling

. ” Rule 54(b) provides , in relevant part:
“When more than one ( 1) claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross

- claim, or third party cl aim , or when multiple parties are involved, the cour t may di rect the ent ry of a final judgment as t o o ne (1) or more but fewer than all of the c l aims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judg ment. ” (Emphas is a dded

. )
This Court ha s c learly stated that “ [t]he p u rp ose of [Rule 54(b)] is to avoid piecemeal a

ppeals. ” Astro

- Med, Inc. v. R. Moroz, Ltd. , 811 A.2d 1154, 1156 (R.I. 2002) (quoting 1 Kent, R.I. Civ. Prac. 396, 397 (1969))

. 5 This polic y “ militates in

5 T h e Cou r t in Astro

- Me d , Inc. further pragmatical ly observed t hat “ by limiting entry o f fi nal judgme n t under Rule 54(b) t o those instances in whic h a- 9

-

favo r of dela yin g jud gment u ntil all claims involving a l l parties are ripe for dispo sition and enter i ng judg ment as to a ll only when that time arrives. ” Id. (quoting 1 Kent, § 54.3 at 400 ) ; see also Cathay Cathay , Inc. v. Vindalu, LLC , 136
A.3 d 111 3, 11 21 (R.I . 20 16) (not ing this Cou rt ’ s “ strong p referenc e fo r av oiding piecem eal appellate review ” ) (inter n al quotation marks and brackets omitted)

. We
have emphasiz ed that “ [a] hearing justice should enter final judgment under Rul e 54(b) only in u nusual and co mpel ling circums tances. ” Ast ro - Med, Inc. , 811 A. 2d a t
1 1 58 (internal quotation marks omitted)

. When this Court re view s a Rule 54(b) certification of the entry of final judg ment, it “ employs a two

- part inquiry. ” Catha y Cathay , Inc. , 136 A.3d at 1118

. First, t his C ourt “ a ss ess[es] wh ether the [ hearing ] justice properly d etermined tha t
the acti on bel ow in v olved either multiple parties or multiple claims and whether
the lower court ’ s disposition adjudicated one o r more but fewer t han all of the
claims before it. ” Id. at 11 1 8

- 19 (intern al quotation ma rks omitted)

. I f t his Court
is s atisfied that th e r e quir e ments of the first s tep ha ve been me t , it “ next ask [ s ]
whether the [ hearing ] justice p roperly de t ermined th at there was no just reason for delay. ” Id. at 1 119 (int e rnal quo tation mark s o mitted). W e review that
d etermination under the abus e of discret ion s tan dard. See Westinghouse

hearing just i ce find s no just reason for delay, this C o urt is spa red f rom having to keep relearning the facts of a case on successive appeals. ” Astro

- Med , Inc. v. R. M oroz, L td. , 811 A.2d 115 4 , 1156 (R.I. 2 0 02 ) (interna l quotation marks omitted)

.- 10

-

Broad casting Co. , Inc. v. Dial Media, Inc. , 122 R.I. 571, 577 , 410 A.2d 986, 989 (1980)

. And w e con stantly bear in mind that the abu se o f d iscretion standar d

“ inclu des review to determine that the discre t ion was not guided by er r on eous legal

c oncl usions.” Votolato v. Merandi , 747 A.2d 455, 460 (R.I. 2000) (quoting Koon v. United States , 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996) )

. In the case at bar, neit her party d is putes t h at the first pron g o f the R u le 54(b)

two

- part i nquiry has been satisfie d ; for that rea son , we shift ou r focu s to the s econd
prong
. Our careful review of t he record reveals that i t is entirely devoid of any reasoning that i s requir ed f or a Rule 54(b) a nal ysis

. S pecifically , the hearing j ustice ’ s deci s ion is be reft of an “ exp r es s determinat ion that there [was] n o just

rea son for del ay * * *. ” Super. R. C iv. P. 54(b). T he hearing j ustice ’ s sole reason for granting the plaintiff ’ s mo ti on for entr y of partia l fi n al judgment “ nunc pro

tunc ” w as s o that th e pl aintiff could perf ect he r appeal

. W e n ote that t his ruli ng occurred after the d efendants articulated their position that the plaintiff had failed
to make a s howing that the entry of p artial final judgmen t would have been “ i n the
interes t of justice ” a nd that there was “ no re a so n to delay

. ” A ccordingly, it is o ur opinion that the h e a ring justice erred in entering partial final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) due to the fact that h e fa iled to determine wh ether or not the criteria
cl e arly set forth in R ule 54(b) had been satis f ied . Given ou r ho lding with respect- 11

-

to the hearing justic e ’ s failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 54(b), the issues raised in the plaintiff ’ s appea l ar e not properly befor e us at th is time.
I V
C onclusi on
I t is our opini o n that th e defendan ts ’ cr oss
- appeal is meri torious and that th e January 24 , 2023 pa rt ial fin al judgment must be vacated . Ac cordingly, we vacate
that judgment and r emand the case to t he Su perior Court fo r further pro ceedings. In light of the length of time that this ca se ha s been pending, we direct that it proceed expeditiously to trial , and it is to be hoped that any f urt her appeal will be deferred until after the entry of final judg ment

. The record m ay be returne d t o the S u perior Court

.

Justice Lyn ch Prata and Justic e Long did n ot participate

.SU

- CMS

- 02A (revised November 2022) STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT

– CLERK’S OFFICE L icht Judicial Complex 250 Benefit Street Providence, RI 02903

OPINION COVER SHEET

Title of Case Dania Mateo v. Davidson Media Group Rhode Island Stations, LLC, et al.

Case Number No. 2023

- 141

- Appeal. No. 2023

- 162

- A ppeal. ( PC 10

- 2433)
Date Opinion Filed March 26, 2024

Justices Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, and Robinson, JJ.
Written By Associate Justice William P. Robinson III
Source of Appeal Providence County Superior Court

Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice R. David Cruise

Attorney(s) on Appeal For Plaintiff: Christopher J. Petrarca, Esq. For Defendants: Vicki J. Bejma, Esq.