Court Opinion

ID: 2964721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:30:05.535472+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:58.161771
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1903

                               JOSE M. APONTE, ET AL.,

                                Plaintiffs, Appellees,

                                          v.

               MARTHA TABARES, D/B/A MANHATTAN HOLDING COMPANY, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                                 
                                     ____________

             DELIA ESTHER RIVERA-PEREZ, D/B/A MANHATTAN HOLDING COMPANY,
                      D/B/A TRADING CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL CORP.,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Carlos M. Mangual Lopez on brief for appellant.
            _______________________
            Frank D. Inserni on brief for appellees.
            ________________

                                 ____________________

                                     May 8, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.    Delia  E.  Rivera-Perez  ("Rivera")
                      ___________

            appeals from a judgment entered after a jury verdict in favor

            of  plaintiffs on  their  fraud claims.    We have  carefully

            considered her  arguments on appeal and  determined that they

            are without merit.

                      I.  Subject Matter Jurisdiction
                          ___________________________

                      Appellant challenges the  federal district  court's

            subject  matter  jurisdiction on  the ground  that plaintiffs

            failed  to satisfy the  jurisdictional amount  in controversy

            requirement.   Limits on subject matter  jurisdiction are not

            waivable and, therefore, may be raised at any time.  15 James

            Wm.  Moore, et al., Moore's Federal Practice   102.13 (3d ed.
                                ________________________

            1997).     "For  the   purposes  of   establishing  diversity

            jurisdiction,  the amount  in  controversy  is determined  by

            looking to  the circumstances at  the time  the complaint  is

            filed."  Coventry Sewage  Assocs. v.  Dworkin Realty  Co., 71
                     ________________________     ___________________

            F.3d  1, 4 (1st  Cir. 1995).   Therefore, "the jurisdictional

            amount  test  is  not  dependent  upon  the  amount  actually

            recovered  by plaintiff."  14A Charles  A. Wright,  Arthur R.

            Miller & Edward  H. Cooper, Federal Practice and  Procedure  
                                        _______________________________

            3702 at 31 (1985).

                      In  a  case like  this  one where  a  defendant has

            challenged  plaintiffs' allegations concerning  the amount in

            controversy, "the plaintiff  must produce sufficient evidence

            to meet the requirements  of the 'legal certainty' test  by a

                                         -2-

            preponderance of the  evidence supported by competent  proof.

            'Competent proof' has  been defined as proof to  a reasonable

            probability  that jurisdiction  exists."  15 Moore's  Federal
                                                         ________________

            Practice,  supra,   102.107[1].   Under  the legal  certainty
            ________   _____

            test, plaintiffs must establish "that it does not appear to a
                                                          ___

            legal certainty  that the  claim is below  the jurisdictional
                                                _____

            minimum." Id.,  102.106[1].
                      ___

                      We assume  for purposes  of this appeal  that these

            plaintiffs'  claims  cannot  be  aggregated  for purposes  of

            calculating  the requisite  jurisdictional  amount.   See  15
                                                                  ___

            Moore's Federal  Practice, supra,   102.108[3][b].   We  have
            _________________________  _____

            included claims  for damages  for pain  and suffering  in the

            calculation.  Pain and suffering damages are recognized under

            Puerto  Rico tort and contract law.  See Serrano v. Nicholson
                                                 ___ _______    _________

            Nursery,  Inc., 844 F. Supp.  73, 76 (D.  Puerto Rico, 1994).
            ______________

            We   conclude  that   each  plaintiff   met  his   burden  of

            demonstrating  that it does  not appear to  a legal certainty

            that his claim is below $50,000.

                      II.  Judgment as  a Matter of Law  and Failure
                           _________________________________________
                 to        State a Claim
                 ___       _____________

                      Appellant argues  that the district  court erred in

            denying  her motion  pursuant  to Fed.  R.  Civ. P.  50,  for

            judgment  as a  matter  of law  where  "there is  no  legally

            sufficient evidentiary  basis for  a reasonable jury  to find

            for that  party on that issue."  In reviewing the denial of a

            motion for judgment as a matter of law,  we review the record

                                         -3-

            to  determine  whether it  "provides an  adequate evidentiary

            basis  for the district court's decision to submit the matter

            to the jury."  Santiago Hodge v. Parke Davis &  Co., 909 F.2d
                           ______________    __________________

            628,  634 (1st  Cir. 1990).   Without the  trial transcripts,

            which appellant has not provided, this court cannot make that

            determination.    Therefore,  appellant is  not  entitled  to

            relief on the ground that the district court erred in denying

            her motion for  judgment as  a matter of  law.1  See  Valedon
                                                          1  ___  _______

            Martinez v. Hospital Presbiteriano de la Comunidad, Inc., 806
            ________    ____________________________________________

            F.2d 1128, 1135 (1st Cir. 1986) (this court will not review a

            claim   of  error  if  appellant  has  failed  to  include  a

            transcript  of the  pertinent  proceedings in  the record  on

            appeal).

                      Appellant argued  in her motion to  dismiss, as she

            does  on appeal, that the  complaint failed to  state a claim

            against her for fraud or breach of contract.  She argued that

            she  was not  a  party  to  the  contracts  between  MHC  and

            plaintiffs  and,  therefore, was  not  liable  thereon.   She

            further  contended   that  "in  the  absence  of  contractual

            obligation  a  party cannot  be  charged  with  fraud."   The

            elements  of a  fraud claim  under Puerto Rico  law are  1) a

            false   representation   by  defendant,   (2)the  plaintiff's

                                
            ____________________

               1  Similarly, Rivera's claim that, as a matter of law, co-
               1
            plaintiff Carlos  Fernandez "did not  have a cause  of action
            against  Delia Rivera  based  on his  testimony [at  trial],"
            cannot be reviewed without the trial transcripts.

                                         -4-

            reasonable   and  foreseeable  reliance  thereon,  injury  to

            plaintiff from  his reliance,  and (4) intent  to defraud  by

            plaintiff.  See Wadsworth, Inc.  v. Schwarz-Nin, 951 F. Supp.
                        ___ _______________     ___________

            314, 323  (D. Puerto Rico 1996).   The complaint sufficiently

            alleged each of the required elements.

                      III.  Attachment
                            __________

                      We affirm  the district court's order  dated August

            1, 1995 essentially for  the reasons stated therein.   We add

            only the following  comments concerning appellant's arguments

            on  appeal that the bond amount was insufficient and that the

            hearing was inadequate because no evidence was introduced.  

                      Under Rule 56.3  of the Puerto Rico  Rules of Civil

            Procedure, P.R.Laws Ann. Tit.  32, App. III, the amount  of a

            bond to support an ex parte attachment must be "sufficient to

            secure  all damages arising from the remedy."  P.R.R. Civ. P.

            56.3. The  Supreme Court  of Puerto  Rico has cautioned  that

            "the  amount  [of  an  attachment  bond]  should  not  be  so

            excessive as  to thwart  the plaintiffs' purpose  of securing

            the  effectiveness of  the judgment  to be  timely rendered."

            Conjugal  Partnership v.  Rodriguez, 116  D.P.R. 463  (1985).
            _____________________     _________

            Moreover,  "the amount of the bond would always be subject to

            change  if the  defendant  could  show  that the  damage  the

            attachment causes  him exceeds the  amount of the  bond." Id.
                                                                      ___

            Appellant did  not object to the amount of the bond until the

            hearing  requested  by plaintiffs  and  she did  not  seek to

                                         -5-

            introduce any evidence to demonstrate that  the amount of the

            bond  was  inadequate to  cover  potential  damages from  the

            attachment.   Under these circumstances,  the district  court

            did not err in setting the amount of the bond at $20,000.

                      Appellant argues that  the post-attachment  hearing

            was inadequate because it was not a full evidentiary hearing.

            From the minutes of  the hearing, it appears that  Rivera did

            not request the opportunity to present evidence  or object to

            plaintiffs' failure  to present evidence.   Rule 56.5  of the

            Puerto  Rico Rules of Civil Procedure does not require a full

            evidentiary hearing.  Cf. HMG  Property  Investors v.  Parzue
                                  ___ ________________________     ______

            Indus.  Rio Canas, 847 F.2d 908, 914 (1st Cir. 1988) (holding
            _________________

            that  Rule 56.2 "requires notice and a fair chance to marshal

            supporting facts  and theories -- nothing  more").  Appellant

            still  has not  explained  what evidence  ought to  have been

            presented  and how it would  have changed the  outcome of the

            attachment hearing.  

                      The district  court order affirming  the attachment

            order is affirmed.   The district court judgment in  favor of
                     ________

            plaintiffs dated June  10, 1996,  is affirmed.   See Loc.  R.
                                                 ________    ___

            27.1.

                                         -6-