456 F.Supp.3d 361
D.P.R.2020Background
- Plaintiff Dr. Marigdalia K. Ramírez-Fort, a Puerto Rico resident, completed a residency at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) under one-year residency contracts for 2017 and 2018.
- Ramírez alleges racial/gender discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, disclosure of health information, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract, primarily based on conduct occurring in South Carolina; later alleged defamation affected opportunities in Indiana, Florida, and Lebanon.
- Ramírez filed an EEOC charge in Puerto Rico and received a right-to-sue notice; defendants (MUSC and several MUSC-employed physicians, none domiciled in Puerto Rico) moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The Court reviewed the jurisdictional challenge under the prima facie standard, accepted well-pled allegations, and considered uncontradicted defendant facts.
- The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, vacated the motion to strike as moot, denied sanctions, and dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants waived or are estopped from raising personal jurisdiction because they did not raise it at the EEOC | Defendants failed to assert personal jurisdiction at the EEOC and thus are precluded/waived from asserting it here | Personal jurisdiction was properly raised in defendants’ first Rule 12 filing; EEOC was not a proper forum to litigate federal-court personal jurisdiction | Court: No waiver, estoppel, or preclusion — defendants may raise personal jurisdiction now |
| Whether Puerto Rico courts (and thus this Court) have specific jurisdiction based on (a) Ramírez’s residency contract and her stated intent to return to PR, and (b) MUSC’s activities in Puerto Rico (recruitment, research, agency collaboration) | Ramírez: MUSC’s contacts with Puerto Rico and contract formation (including her intent to return) establish sufficient relatedness and purposeful availment | Defendants: Alleged misconduct occurred in South Carolina; MUSC’s PR activities were unrelated to Ramírez and her claims | Court: No specific jurisdiction — Ramírez failed the relatedness prong; contacts in PR did not cause or give rise to the claims |
| Whether general jurisdiction exists over defendants in Puerto Rico | Ramírez briefly asserted general jurisdiction but relied on specific-jurisdiction argument | Defendants lack continuous and systematic contacts with Puerto Rico; not essentially "at home" there | Court: Plaintiff waived general-jurisdiction argument; in any event general jurisdiction would be lacking |
| Motions to strike and for sanctions | N/A | N/A | Motion to strike vacated as moot; motion for sanctions denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (established minimum contacts standard for due process personal jurisdiction)
- Swiss Am. Bank, Ltd., 274 F.3d 610 (1st Cir. 2001) (relatedness inquiry and federal-question contacts analysis)
- LP Solutions LLC v. Duchossois, 907 F.3d 95 (1st Cir. 2018) (prima facie standard for personal jurisdiction at motion-to-dismiss stage)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (contracts alone do not automatically establish jurisdiction; prior negotiations and foreseeable consequences matter)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (U.S. 2014) (general jurisdiction requires defendants be essentially "at home" in the forum)
- Copia Commc’ns, LLC v. AMResorts, L.P., 812 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2016) (three-pronged specific-jurisdiction test: relatedness, purposeful availment, reasonableness)
- A Corp. v. All Am. Plumbing, Inc., 812 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2016) (all prongs of specific-jurisdiction test must be satisfied)
- Marcial Ucin, S.A. v. SS Galicia, 723 F.2d 994 (1st Cir. 1983) (personal-jurisdiction is a privileged defense that can be waived if not asserted seasonably)
- Petruska v. Gannon Univ., 462 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2006) (administrative agencies are generally not competent to determine constitutional issues such as personal jurisdiction)
- Mercado v. Ritz-Carlton San Juan Hotel, Spa & Casino, 410 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2005) (defendant did not waive timeliness defense by not asserting it before the EEOC)