285 F. Supp. 3d 502
D.P.R.2018Background
- Plaintiffs sued sellers/distributors/packagers and insurers after allegedly contaminated shrimp caused injury; they pleaded strict liability and other tort claims.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the strict liability claim and later moved to dismiss other claims; the district court denied the second motion as to remaining tort claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The district court certified a controlling question to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court: whether strict products liability applies when the food product’s defect (contamination) was not the result of human manufacture and whether discoverability of the defect matters.
- The Puerto Rico Supreme Court answered that strict liability does not apply to food contaminated without human intervention (saxitoxin-contaminated shrimp), excluding such products from strict liability protection.
- Following that answer, the district court granted defendants’ motion and dismissed plaintiffs’ strict liability claim; remaining general tort claims proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does strict products liability apply to a food product contaminated without human manufacture? | Strict liability should apply to sellers/distributors of contaminated food causing harm. | Strict liability does not apply where contamination occurred without human manufacture. | No — PR Supreme Court: strict liability does not cover non‑manufactured contamination. |
| Would scientific or other discoverability of the defect affect strict liability applicability? | Discoverability might influence liability application. | Even if defect is discoverable, absence of manufacture defeats strict liability. | Not reached as controlling answer: liability excluded because contamination lacked human manufacture. |
| Should the federal court certify unsettled state law to the PR Supreme Court? | Certification unnecessary; federal prediction sufficient. | Certification appropriate when state law guidance is lacking. | Certification appropriate; federal court deferred to PR Supreme Court under comity/federalism. |
| Do Plaintiffs’ remaining tort claims survive a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge? | Complaint states sufficient facts for Puerto Rico general tort claims. | Defendants sought dismissal. | District court denied dismissal; those claims proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- VanHaaren v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 989 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.) (federal court may certify state law questions when precedent is lacking)
- Porter v. Nutter, 913 F.2d 37 (1st Cir.) (standard for predicting state law vs. certification)
- Pagan‑Colon v. Walgreens of San Patricio, Inc., 697 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (prudence of certification when state law path is unclear)
- Collazo‑Santiago v. Toyota Motor Corp., 937 F. Supp. 134 (D.P.R.) (discussion of certification and prediction)
- Watchtower Bible Tract Socy. v. Municipality of Ponce, 197 F. Supp. 3d 340 (D.P.R.) (certification and deference to state courts)
- Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (U.S.) (comity principles)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (U.S.) (comity, finality, federalism referenced)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (U.S.) (values of comity and federalism)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Beacon Hill Architectural Comm’n, 40 F.3d 18 (1st Cir.) (federal courts should allow state courts first say on state law)
- Sullivan v. City of Augusta, 511 F.3d 16 (1st Cir.) (abstention and certification mechanisms)