Summary
holding that mere deception is not outrageous conduct
Summary of this case from Grasso v. ARD ContractingOpinion
Case No. 5:00-cv-371-Oc-10GRJ
November 14, 2002
Maria H. Sandoval, Law office of Maria H. Sandoval, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff.
Reginald Luster, Ralph J. Lee, Ronnie S. Carter, U.S. Attorney's Office Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville, FL, Lisa E. Bhatia-Gautier, U.S. Attorney's Office District of Puerto Rico, San Juan, PR, for Defendant.
ORDER
The United States Magistrate Judge has issued a report (Doc. 47) recommending that the Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment" (Doc. 32), be granted.
The Plaintiffs have filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings (Doc. 50) (Doc. 54). Specifically, the Plaintiffs assert the following objections:
(1) that the law of Puerto Rico recognizes common law marriages insofar as it recognizes a concubine's right to share in jointly-owned property;
(2) that the Plaintiffs have a right to sue for "loss of associational benefits" (Doc. 50);
(3) that the Magistrate Judge erroneously concluded that the Defendant's conduct was "less than outrageous" and thus insufficient to give rise to a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress; and,
(4) that the Magistrate Judge erroneously concluded that the Plaintiffs' diabetes and/or emotionally triggered asthma do not constitute a "physical impact," which is necessary to give rise to a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress pursuant to Florida law.
First, as to the Plaintiffs' assertion that the law of Puerto Rico recognizes common law marriages insofar as the law of Puerto Rico recognizes a concubine relationship for purposes of property distribution, the Plaintiffs' objection is due to be overruled. As correctly cited in the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, the law of Puerto Rico does not recognize common law marriages.
U.S. v. Panzardi-Alvarez, 678 F. Supp. 353, 356 n. 4 (D. Puerto Rico 1988). See also Delgado v. Bowen, 651 F. Supp. 1320, 1321 (D. Puerto Rico 1987) (stating that "the laws of Puerto Rico do not recognize common-law marriages," and citing, Civil Code, 31 L.P.R.A. sec. 221). InDelgado, the Court also stated that although the law of Puerto Rico recognizes a concubine's right to a share of jointly-owned property, the law of Puerto Rico does not recognize a concubine as a "spouse" for the purposes of the distribution of intestate personal property. Id. at 1321, 1322.
Second, as to the Plaintiffs' assertion that they have a "right to sue for the loss of associational benefits," the objection is due to be overruled. The Plaintiffs have failed to cite any controlling authority to support their objection, and Florida law provides that upon the death of the spouse or parent, a cause of action for loss of consortium is abated.
ACandS, Inc. v. Redd, 703 So.2d 492, 494 (3d DCA 1997). A spouse or child may recover for loss of support and services pursuant to Florida's Wrongful Death Act, but in this action, the Plaintiffs have abandoned their claims under the Wrongful Death Act.
Third, as to the Plaintiffs' objection that the Defendant's conduct was "outrageous," the objection is due to be overruled. Whether conduct is deemed "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency," is determined by the Court as a matter of law.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. McCarson, 467 So.2d 277, 279 (Fla. 1985).
And fourth, as to the Plaintiffs' objection that diabetes and emotionally triggered asthma constitute a "physical impact" because "[m]odern day psychiatry recognizes that changes in body chemistry parallel changes in the mind," the objection is due to be overruled. Florida law is clear that "intangible, mental injuries are insufficient to meet the physical injury requirement."
R.J. P.J. v. Humana of Florida, Inc., 652 So.2d 360, 364 (Fla. 1995).
The Defendant has filed "limited objections" to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation (Doc. 53). Because the Defendant's objections do not affect the substance of the report and recommendation, the Defendant's objections are due to be overruled.
The Court does note, however, that Plaintiff "Luis Fernando Ruiz Gonzalez" is also referred to in the record as "Luis Fernando Caballero Gonzalez." And, the Court also notes that although the report and recommendation states that hospital officials informed Plaintiff Luis Gonzales that Mr. Ruiz's spine and neck were broken by prison personnel, the Complaint (Doc. 1) reflects that it was Mr. Ruiz who informed Plaintiff Luis Gonzales of his injuries, and that it was Mr. Ruiz's personal conclusion that prison personnel had acted crudely.
Upon due consideration of the Plaintiffs' and Defendant's objections, and upon an independent examination of the file, it is ordered that:
(1) the Plaintiffs' objections to the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 50) (Doc. 54) are OVERRULED;
(2) the Defendant's objections to the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 53) are OVERRULED;
(3) the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 47)is adopted, confirmed, and made a part hereof;
(4) the Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment" (Doc. 32) is GRANTED;
(5) the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiffs; and,
(6) the Clerk is further directed to terminate any pending motions, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONE and ORDERED