Carrasquillo-Serrano v. Municipality of Canovanas, 991 F.3d 32

In March 2014 Julio Carrasquillo presented twice to CDT of Canóvanas with neurologic symptoms, was allegedly misdiagnosed, and suffered severe permanent injuries.
Plaintiffs sued in March 2015 under EMTALA and Puerto Rico tort law, naming CDT, its treating physician, S.M. Medical (operator), and the Municipality of Canóvanas (alleged owner).
Plaintiffs served the summons on March 17, 2015 on Canóvanas's in‑house attorney Josué González (not the mayor); Canóvanas did not answer and default was entered; a jury returned a $1.5 million verdict (Aug. 30, 2017).
Canóvanas moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) (in March 2018) to vacate the judgment as void, arguing (1) plaintiffs failed to give 90‑day municipal notice under PRAMA; (2) service was improper because not on the mayor; (3) the judgment exceeded Puerto Rico municipal liability caps; and (4) EMTALA did not reach the CDT so the district court lacked federal‑question jurisdiction.
The district court denied relief; the First Circuit affirmed, holding none of Canóvanas’s arguments showed the judgment was void.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
PRAMA 90‑day notice jurisdictional?	PRAMA is not jurisdictional; notice is an affirmative defense / may be excused	Failure to give statutory notice deprived federal court of jurisdiction over Canóvanas	PRAMA notice is not jurisdictional; treated as an affirmative defense and therefore does not render the judgment void
Service of process on in‑house counsel	Service on González created a prima facie valid return and presumption of proper service	Service was improper because statute requires service on the mayor (chief executive)	Return of service naming González unrebutted; presumption of valid service stands; personal jurisdiction appropriate
Municipal statutory damage cap	Cap is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded; plaintiffs entitled to judgment	Judgment void because it exceeds municipal liability limits under Puerto Rico law	Cap is an affirmative defense; Canóvanas waived it by not pleading; excess judgment does not render judgment void; Canóvanas may seek contribution from co‑defendants later
EMTALA coverage / federal‑question jurisdiction	Complaint pleaded EMTALA claims; district court had jurisdiction to determine EMTALA's applicability	CDT is not covered by EMTALA (so no federal question jurisdiction)	District court had federal‑question jurisdiction to adjudicate EMTALA issues; even if federal claim failed, supplemental jurisdiction over state claims was proper

United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260 (Sup. Ct. 2010) (Rule 60(b)(4) relief limited to judgments that are truly void, not merely erroneous)
Farm Credit Bank v. Ferrera‑Goitia, 316 F.3d 62 (1st Cir. 2003) (distinguishing jurisdictional defects that render judgments void)
Shank/Balfour Beatty v. Int'l Broth. of Elec. Workers Local 99, 497 F.3d 83 (1st Cir. 2007) (de novo review where Rule 60(b)(4) raises jurisdictional questions)
Boch Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 909 F.2d 657 (1st Cir. 1990) (only rare, clear usurpations of power render judgments void)
Blair v. City of Worcester, 522 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2008) (a return of service gives a prima facie presumption of valid service)
Knapp Shoes, Inc. v. Sylvania Shoe Mfg. Corp., 15 F.3d 1222 (1st Cir. 1994) (statutory limitation on damages is an affirmative defense under Rule 8(c) and can be waived)
Rodriguez v. Am. Int'l Ins. Co. of P.R., 402 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2005) (analysis of whether EMTALA applies to a CDT and discussion of facilities covered)
Senra v. Town of Smithfield, 715 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2013) (district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims even if federal claim is dismissed)