Source: http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/1stbetances.html
Timestamp: 2017-10-19 05:17:58
Document Index: 75650229

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1332', '§ 185', '§ 185', '§ 185', '§ 185', '§ 1332']

Corrada Betances v. Sea-Land Service (1st Cir. 2001)
FRANCISCO CORRADA BETANCES,
Harry Anduze Montaño and Noelma Colon Cordoves on brief for appellant.
SELYA, Circuit Judge. In this appeal, plaintiff-appellant Francisco Corrada Betances (Corrada) invites us to reverse a summary judgment order entered in favor of his former employer, defendant-appellee Sea-Land Service, Inc. (Sea-Land). We decline the invitation.
At the end of his shift on April 21, 1997, Corrada left Sea-Land's premises with Ernie Ostolaza, a fellow supervisor. The pair visited various watering holes, imbibing as they went. Five hours later, they returned to Sea-Land's premises to retrieve Ostolaza's car. After they arrived, they did not simply drive away, but, rather, entered the marine department office (where others were still toiling) and engaged in raucous behavior. The matter apparently was reported through channels and, on April 22, Corrada and Ostolaza were suspended for two weeks. For aught that appears, this suspension was neither vacated nor overturned.(1)
There is little point in attempting to reinvent a well-fashioned wheel. Where, as here, a trial judge astutely takes the measure of a case and hands down a convincing, well-reasoned decision, "an appellate court should refrain from writing at length to no other end than to hear its own words resonate." Lawton v. State Mut. Life Assur. Co., 101 F.3d 218, 220 (1st Cir. 1996); accord Cruz-Ramos v. P.R. Sun Oil Co., 202 F.3d 381, 383 (1st Cir. 2000); Ayala v. Union de Tronquistas de P.R., Local 901, 74 F.3d 344, 345 (1st Cir. 1996); Holders Capital Corp. v. Cal. Union Ins. Co. (In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig.), 989 F.2d 36, 38 (1st Cir. 1993). Consequently, with one exception (discussed infra), we affirm the judgment below for substantially the reasons elucidated in Judge Pieras's thoughtful rescript. We add only a few comments about Corrada's wrongful discharge claim, and then discuss the one aspect of the case where we disagree with the district court's rationale. We rely entirely on the trial court's rescript vis-à-vis Corrada's privacy claims. And, inasmuch as Corrada's appellate brief contains no developed argumentation in support of his defamation claim, we deem that claim abandoned. United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990).
By the same token, Corrada does not profit, in the circumstances of this case, from his filing of a so-called "Counterstatement of Uncontested Material Facts." We explain briefly.
With regard to this particular section of the rule, we have recently reiterated that the nonmovant's "failure to present a statement of disputed facts, embroidered with specific citations to the record, justifies the court's deeming the facts presented in the movant's statement of undisputed facts admitted." Ruiz Rivera v. Riley, 209 F.3d 24, 28 (1st Cir. 2000); accord Morales v. A.C. Orssleff's EFTF, ___ F.3d ___, ___ (1st Cir. 2001) [No. 00-1707, slip op. at 3]. These authorities undermine Corrada's attempted reliance on his response to Sea-Land's meticulous Rule 311.12 statement as a basis for this appeal. That response was woefully deficient. Although Corrada stalwartly refused to admit many of the facts assembled by Sea-Land, he utterly failed to point to any record references, let alone any admissible evidence, that might support a contrary version.(2)
We will not belabor the obvious. Corrada did not file a Rule 56(f) motion, nor did he bring to the district court's attention in any equivalent manner the "denial of discovery" plaint that he voices here. Those omissions defeat his afterthought claim. If any principle is firmly established in this circuit, it is that, in the absence of excusatory circumstances -- and none are apparent here -- arguments not seasonably raised in the district court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Teamsters Union, Local No. 59 v. Superline Transp. Co., 953 F.2d 17, 21 (1st Cir. 1992); McCoy v. Mass. Inst. of Tech., 950 F.2d 13, 22 (1st Cir. 1991). That principle pertains here.(3)
In this instance, the district court, having foreclosed Corrada's other initiatives, declined to address his Law 80 claim on jurisdictional grounds. The court reasoned that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because this claim, standing alone, failed to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement ($75,000) established as a prerequisite to federal diversity jurisdiction.(4)See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
The district court's error, however, was altogether harmless. Consequently, it neither necessitates vacation of the judgment nor affects the outcome on appeal. No award is due under Law 80 if an employee is dismissed for "good cause." 29 P.R. Laws Ann. § 185b.(5) The law defines "good cause" to include, inter alia, situations in which an employee is cashiered for "indulg[ing] in a pattern of improper or disorderly conduct," id. § 185b(a), and those in which he or she is discharged for repeatedly violating "reasonable rules and regulations established for the operation of the [employer's business], provided a written copy thereof has been opportunely furnished to the employee." Id. § 185b(c). Both of these definitions apply here. Thus, based on the uncontradicted facts, the record in this case leaves no doubt that good cause (i.e., the serial violations of the "no drinking on the job" policy) existed for Sea-Land's decision to hand Corrada his walking papers.
1. This undermines the claim made in Corrada's appellate brief, that his initial suspension was unwarranted under a literal interpretation of the personnel policy (which threatens suspension if an employee "is found to be drinking on the job or if [he] reports to work under the influence of alcohol").
2. In all events, Corrada's counter-statement did not contest the existence of Sea-Land's "no drinking on the job" policy, the occurrence of his earlier suspension, or the fact that he reported to work intoxicated on the day before Sea-Land fired him. He apparently concedes that these facts are incontrovertible.
4. Severance pay is the exclusive remedy afforded by Law 80. See 29 P.R. Laws Ann. § 185a. The statute provides for varying payments depending on years of service. Since Corrada worked for Sea-Land for slightly over five years, he would have been entitled to two months' wages as severance pay under Law 80 had he prevailed. See id. Corrada's annual salary at the time of his discharge was $39,529.34. Thus, his Law 80 claim, if successful, would have yielded an award substantially below the amount in controversy required as a precondition to federal diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
5. A minor discrepancy deserves comment. The title of article 185b refers to dismissal for "just cause," whereas the text predominantly uses the term "good cause." As a general rule, the language of the statutory text holds sway over the wording of the title. Penn. Dep't of Corrs. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 212 (1998). In this instance, however, the two terms appear to be used synonymously. Accordingly, we treat them as interchangeable.