Colón Rivera v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Co.
184 P.R. 184
Supreme Court of Puerto Rico2012Background
- Original 1998 wage-claims case against Wyeth filed in Puerto Rico (Guayama) Superior Court by 248 claimants; focus on hours, overtime, and meal-period reductions.
- Concurrent 1998 class action De León v. Wyeth (Donning and doffing and other pay claims) filed; efforts to consolidate with autos; later partial summary and denials of intervention.
- 2005–2008: case certified as complex under Reglas de Litigación Compleja; judge designated to manage the complex case.
- 2006: amended complaint filed eight years after the original, adding 32 new plaintiffs and new theories (including donning and doffing, vacations and bonuses) and changing the legal theory.
- 2009: trial court authorized the Amended Complaint; Wyeth sought certiorari; CA granted certiorari to review interlocutory amendment decision; CA reversed the authorization; Supreme Court Puerto Rico denied relief and returned case to TPI for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CA properly exercised certiorari jurisdiction over the amendment. | Wyeth argues CA lacked jurisdiction over an eight-year amendment. | Petitioners contend amendment was non-academic but prejudicial. | CA correctly exercised certiorari jurisdiction. |
| Whether interlocutory review was permissible under Complex Civil Litigation Rules. | Wyeth maintains review should be limited to final orders. | Complex case rules allow interlocutory review under exceptions. | Yes; CA could review the interlocutory amendment under Rule 16(c). |
| Whether the amendment caused undue prejudice to Wyeth. | Amendment did not prejudice Wyeth since claims were known since 1998. | Eight-year delay and new, divergent claims prejudice Wyeth. | Undue prejudice established; amendment denied. |
| Whether the amendment altered the nature of the case to tangentially diverge from the original. | Amendment expands and clarifies existing theories. | Amendment introduces new theories and claims. | Yes; amendment changed the core scope of the case. |
| Whether the amendment should be allowed notwithstanding complex-case procedures. | Policy favors liberal amendments. | Delay and expanded scope undermine case economy. | Denied; amendment not authorized. |
Key Cases Cited
- Font Bardón v. Mini-Warehouse, 179 D.P.R. 322 (Puerto Rico 2010) (liberal amendment policy; four-factor test for undue prejudice; dynamic approach)
- Sierra v. Rodríguez, 163 D.P.R. 738 (Puerto Rico 2005) (four-factor test; dynamic approach; emphasis on prejudice and timing)
- Epifanio Vidal, Inc. v. Suro, 164 D.P.R. 793 (Puerto Rico 1976) (early articulation of amendment analysis and public policy to adjudicate merits)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (U.S. Supreme Court 1962) (liberality of amendments not unlimited; undue prejudice controls)
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, 401 U.S. 321 (U.S. Supreme Court 1971) (undue prejudice key factor in denying leave to amend)
- Acosta-Mestre v. Hilton International of Puerto Rico, 156 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 1998) (federal approach to undue prejudice and amendments; judicial economy concerns)