USCA1 Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________

No. 95-2050

ROSSY COYANTE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PUERTO RICO PORTS AUTHORITY, ET AL.,

Defendants - Appellees.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Juan M. P rez-Gim nez, U.S. District Judge]

___________________

____________________

Before

Coffin and Campbell, Senior Circuit Judges,

_____________________

and DiClerico, Jr.,* District Judge.

______________

_____________________

Antonio Jim nez-Miranda for appellant.

_______________________
Raymond P. Burgos, with
__________________

whom Pinto-Lugo & Rivera was

_____________________

on

brief for appellee Puerto Rico Ports Authority; Roberto M rquez_________________

S nchez
_______

with whom

Law Offices of Benjam n Acosta, Jr.

_____________________________________

brief for appellee Mangual Maintenance Services, Inc.

was on

____________________

January 23, 1997

____________________

____________________

Of the District of New Hampshire, sitting by designation.

DICLERICO, Chief District Judge.

DICLERICO, Chief District Judge.
____________________

The plaintiff, Rossy

Coyante, filed

Ports

a complaint

Authority

Services, Inc.

suffered

( Ports

of

P.

and

Mangual

Puerto Rico

Maintenance

damages she claims

to have

as a result of slipping and falling on certain premises

or controlled by the defendants.

testimony

defendants moved

Civ.

Authority )

( Mangual ), seeking

allegedly owned

days

against the defendants,

at

trial,

the

for judgment as a

50(a) asserting

that

plaintiff

Following nine

rested

matter of law under

the

plaintiff had

and

the

Fed. R.

produced

no

evidence to establish that the defendants owned or controlled the

area

agreed

where the plaintiff slipped

with

the

defendants

control were necessary elements

a judgment against her.

and fell.

and, finding

The district court

that

ownership

and

of the plaintiff s case, entered

In this appeal, the plaintiff challenges

the district

court s ruling on the defendants

motion under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 50(a) and several other rulings made during the course

of

the litigation.

For

the reasons expressed

below, we affirm

the district court s judgment.

Factual and Procedural Background

Factual and Procedural Background
_________________________________

On

suffering

international

July

24, 1990,

personal

flight

the

injury

at

the

plaintiff

after

Luis

Airport in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

-2-

slipped and

disembarking

Mu oz

Mar n

from

fell,

an

International

On January 3, 1991, she filed

suit against

negligently

the defendants,

failing to

make

Ports Authority and

safe a

which they knew or should have known.2

suffered

damages arising not only

Mangual,1 for

dangerous condition

about

The plaintiff claimed she

from the accident itself, but

also from the pain she suffered and medical expenses she incurred

when she

became addicted

to and

went

through withdrawal

from

prescription medications she was taking because of the accident.

On March 30, 1993,

an initial

the district court, after resolving

challenge to its jurisdiction,

granted the plaintiff

leave to amend her complaint and ordered the defendants to answer

the amended complaint

on or before April

31, 1993, the plaintiff

12, 1993.

On

March

resubmitted her amended complaint (first

submitted on February 25, 1992) but the defendants did not answer

by April

plaintiff

12

as required

did not

by the

bring this

court s order.

failure to the

However,

the

court s attention

until more than two years later.

On

December

16, 1993,

the

district

court issued

pretrial conference report requiring the parties to submit a list

of uncontested facts.

of Uncontested

Material

The parties agreed to a

Facts

to

Supplement

( joint statement ) on December 17, 1993.

Joint Statement

Pretrial

Order

The plaintiff attaches

____________________

Mangual is a janitorial company with which the Ports Authority

has contracted.

Coyante brought a

separate action

asserting similar

claims

against L nea Aeropostal Venezolana, the airline on which she had

traveled.
January 25,

On June 22, 1992, the two cases were consolidated.

1994, the

plaintiff and

the airline

On

settled their

dispute, leaving as defendants only Ports Authority and Mangual.

-3-

particular significance to the

following provisions of the joint

statement:

7.

On July 24,

provided

1990, co-defendant Mangual

janitorial

services

at

the

Luis

Mu oz Mar n International Airport pursuant to

a

contract

with

the

Puerto

Rico

Ports

Authority.

8.

On July 24, 1990, the Puerto Rico Ports

Authority

owned and operated

the Luis Mu oz

Mar n International Airport.

However,

the

plaintiff alleges

that she

did

not know

of the

existence of this document until after she filed her appeal.

On

supplement

expert.3

February

her list

On

June 9,

9,

1994,

of expert

1995,

the

plaintiff

witnesses with

the court

denied

attempted

to

a loss-of-income

her request

to

include this expert as a witness without articulating the reasons

for its denial.

On December

12, 1994,

the court entered

order requiring discovery to be concluded

February

22,

February 27,

On

1995, the

plaintiff

by April 20, 1995.

fired

her

counsel and,

On

on

1995, filed a pro se motion so informing the court.

March 16, 1995, the court held

conference, the court

counsel to

a scheduling

a status conference.

granted a motion filed

withdraw from the

case and

At that

by the plaintiff s

for scheduling

purposes

asked counsel whether further discovery was pending at that time.

____________________

The plaintiff also attempted to add other witnesses

have bolstered her case on the issue of damages.

district

who would

We focus on the

court s ruling on the loss-of-income expert because the

issues involved are identical.

-4-

Counsel informed the court that no further discovery was pending,

and the court let stand its April 20, 1995, discovery deadline.

On

March 23,

plaintiff s behalf.4

1995,

current counsel

the

The file he received from prior counsel was

reportedly

in

disarray and

undertaken

no discovery of the

one day before the

appeared on

reflected

that

defendants.

the plaintiff

On

deadline set for discovery to

had

April 19, 1995,

be completed,

the plaintiff moved to

deposition.

extend the discovery deadline and

take a

This motion was denied by the court on May 24, 1995.

On June 9, 1995, the plaintiff moved to supplement

the

pretrial order issued on December 17, 1993, to reflect subsequent

changes in

her case.

conference

and ruled

The same day,

that it

December 17, 1993, pretrial

income

expert would

not

the court held

would use

without

a pretrial

amendment the

order, that the plaintiff s loss-of-

be allowed

to

testify, and

that

no

further discovery would be allowed.

In

appeared

July 1995,

imminent.

plaintiff submitted

against the

complaint.

after

However,

three

one-half years,

days

a motion requesting that

defendants for their

The

four and

before

trial

trial

the

default be entered

failure to answer

her amended

district court did not rule on this motion until

August 3, 1995, after the conclusion of

the trial, at which time

it declared the motion moot.

____________________

The plaintiff s counsel at trial and on appeal was the seventh

lawyer to
brief

appear for

her in this

pro se appearance.

plaintiff s

employ

differences

and

for

litigation, not

Prior lawyers were

such

reasons

as

counting her

fired or left the

irreconcilable

loss of confidence.

-5-

At

trial,

the

plaintiff s

case

focused

almost

exclusively on her damages

own testimony,

Silva,

resulting from the fall.

she produced

only one occurrence

to describe the scene of the accident.

Beyond her

witness, Mirta

The two witnesses

provided a detailed description both of the scene of the accident

and

of how the accident

the plaintiff

the

occurred.5

identified specifically

accident occurred.

There

the flight used, which hallway

customs was

location

airport.6

of

However,

located.

the

No

neither Silva nor

where within the

was no testimony

about what gate

the passengers traveled, or where

No testimony specifically

accident

testimony

airport

within the

connected

larger

either

identified the

context

of

the

defendant

to

the

location where the accident occurred or established what duty, if

any,

the defendants owed to

the plaintiff to

make the location

safe.

In fact, at

defendant

Ports

trial the plaintiff

Authority

and

made little mention

produced no

testimony

of

at

all

nine-day case,

the

mentioning defendant Mangual.

At

the close

defendants moved

Civ.

of

the plaintiff s

for judgment as a

matter of law under

Fed. R.

P. 50(a), alleging that the plaintiff had not presented any

____________________

The

accident occurred in a

hallway which connected the

where the passengers left the airplane with

area.

an adjoining customs

A pool of water, which apparently formed due to a crack in

the ceiling,
front

area

of

covered almost the

the

door

to

entire width of the

customs.

The

plaintiff

hallway in
fell

while

attempting to traverse the pool.

For example, an employee connected with the airport prepared a

report

about the

accident shortly

presented at trial but the

after it

happened

that was

report failed to specify the location

of the accident.

-6-

evidence from which it could be found that the defendants were in

control of and responsible for maintaining the location where the

accident occurred.

On

appeal

from

The district court granted the motion.

September 1, 1995, the

plaintiff filed a notice of

the

Rule

district

court s

50(a) decision.

In

connection with her appeal, the plaintiff requested a copy of the

file from the

district court

clerk and upon

inspection of

the

file allegedly discovered for the first time the joint statement.

The plaintiff

presentation

defendants

had not mentioned

of

evidence

in

the joint statement

her

case

or

when

during the

opposing the

Rule 50(a) motion.

Discussion
Discussion
__________

The plaintiff on appeal has assigned as

of

decisions by

the district

court during

error a number

the course

of this

litigation.

A. Rule 50(a) Decision

A. Rule 50(a) Decision
_______________________

The

plaintiff

contends

improperly dismissed her case

Rule 50(a)(1) states:

that

the

district

under Fed. R. Civ. P.

court

Rule 50(a).

If during
fully

a trial by

heard

legally

on an

sufficient

reasonable

jury to

jury a party
issue

and

has been

there is

evidentiary basis
find

for that

no

for a

party on

that issue, the court may determine the issue

against that party and may grant a motion for
judgment

as

a matter

of

law

against that

party with respect to a claim or defense that

cannot

under

maintained

or

the

controlling

defeated without

finding on that issue.

-7-

law

be

a favorable

We review the grant of a Rule 50(a) motion de novo.

_______

Metal Co., 87 F.3d 26, 28 (1st

__________

Katz v. City
____
____

Cir. 1996); Andrade v. Jamestown

_______
_________

Hous. Auth., 82 F.3d 1179, 1186 (1st Cir. 1996).

___________

In doing so, we

use the same standards as the district court, considering all the

evidence and inferences

light most

favorable to the

Andrade, 82 F.3d at
_______

an issue

reasonably to

1186.

to the jury,

be drawn from

non-movant.

However,

the plaintiff

evidence and

Katz,
____

87 F.3d

[t]o warrant

must present

may not rely

it in

the

at 28;

submission of

more

than a

mere scintilla

of

speculation.

Katz, 87 F.3d at 28 (quoting Richmond Steel, Inc.

____
____________________

v. Puerto Rican American Ins. Co., 954

________________________________

1992)).

on conjecture

F.2d 19,

22 (1st

or

Cir.

The plaintiff s attack on the trial court s decision to

enter

judgment against her

factors

that

presented:

she

claims

as a

matter of

bolster

the

law centers

minimal

on two

evidence

she

the joint statement and the knowledge of the jurors.

According to the plaintiff, either factor, when combined with the

testimony about the

allow

the jurors

location of the accident,

to make an

inference in

was sufficient to

her favor

as to the

ownership and control of the area.

1. The Joint Statement

1. The Joint Statement
_______________________

The plaintiff

argues that

the joint

have been considered as

part of her

case, and contends that

was

sufficient

to

establish

Mangual maintained the

area of

that Ports

the airport

statement should

Authority

where the

owned

it

and

accident

occurred. However, the plaintiff s

argument suffers from a fatal

-8-

defect,

namely, the

evidence.7

It

is a

joint statement

basic

tenet

was never

of trial

stipulation concerning uncontested facts must

evidence

by the

those facts

party who intends

to rely

introduced into

procedure

that a

be introduced into

on it

in order for

to be considered by the trier of fact, whether it be

jury or judge.

Contrary to the plaintiff s assertion, it was her

responsibility, and not the court s or the defendants , to ensure

that the joint

statement was

introduced into evidence.

As

we

have explained,

in our adversary system

parties

responsibility to

and prove
expect
them.

their

the court

The

marshal evidence

points.

Litigants

cannot

to do

their homework

for

[Citations omitted].

Ondine Shipping Corp. v.

_____________________

1994).

of justice it is the

Cataldo, 24 F.3d 353, 356-57

_______

plaintiff, for

whatever

reason having

(1st Cir.

failed

to

introduce the joint statement into evidence, cannot now avoid the

consequences

of

her

inaction

by

claiming the

defendants had the responsibility to introduce it.8

____________________

court

or

the

Even if the plaintiff

evidence, it is by no
have

sufficiently

withstand
issue,

the Rule

had introduced the joint statement into

means a foregone conclusion that it

cured

the

deficiency

50(a) motion.

in

We need

her

would

evidence

not confront

to

this

however, because the plaintiff never introduced the joint

statement into evidence.

The

plaintiff has

also offered

concerning the effect of the

that the

two other

joint statement.

related theories

First, she claims

agreement that produced the joint statement should have

barred the defendants from moving for judgment as a matter of law

on the issues of ownership and control.

She further asserts that

the joint statement functioned as a contract between the parties,

one of the implied terms of which was the defendants
to

contest

agreement
neither

ownership and
requires

control,

reversal.

legal authority

As

and
the

that

-9-

breach

plaintiff

nor well-reasoned

promise not
of

this

has produced

arguments for

these

2. The Jury s Experience

2. The Jury s Experience
_________________________

The plaintiff

evidence

own

at trial to

experience,

controlled

place.9

the

his

that she

allow the jurors to

that

area

The trial

substituted

next contends

defendant

of

Ports

the airport

produced enough

infer, based on their

Authority

where

the

owned

and

accident took

judge, the plaintiff maintains, impermissibly

judgment

for that

of

the

trier

of fact

by

removing this decision from the jury.

This case

the

clearly does

jury could rely on

determine something

not present a

its general knowledge

as specific as

situation where

and experience to

the location and

control of

the area where the plaintiff fell.

to

assume

possessed

what,

if any,

concerning

plaintiff correctly

inferences in

It would be pure

knowledge

these

the

specific

issues.

her favor,

tenuous conclusions

evidence tested by the adversary process.

warrant

submission of an issue

present

more than a mere scintilla

conjecture or

of the

jury

Although

the

notes that she is entitled to all reasonable

conjectural knowledge attributed to jurors

on

members

speculation

speculation.

extrapolated from

cannot substitute for

As we have said,

to the jury,

[t]o

the plaintiff must

of evidence and may not rely

Katz, 87
____

F.3d at

28 (quoting

____________________

propositions, we decline to find

the facts of this case.

that either one is viable under

At

oral

Mangual s
statement,

argument,

the plaintiff

liability could
and

not

be

by the

conceded

established
jurors

only

experience

that
by

defendant
the

joint

and knowledge,

because the plaintiff produced no evidence at trial that referred

to Mangual.

-10-

Richmond Steel, Inc. v. Puerto Rican American Ins. Co., 954 F.2d
_____________________
______________________________

19, 22 (1st Cir. 1992)).

Speculation about what the jurors might

have

their

inferred

based on

personal

knowledge of

airports

cannot and does not save the plaintiff s case.

3. Other Evidence from which an Inference of Ownership or

3. Other Evidence from which an Inference of Ownership or
___________________________________________________________
Control Might Arise
Control Might Arise
___________________

We next

review

de novo
________

plaintiff rested her

case for

reasonable inference

that

maintained the

area where

search of the appellate

to

the

plaintiff

the record

upon

any evidence that

Ports

Authority

the accident

that

owned

occurred.

considered,

the

might raise

record reveals no evidence

than

which

and

and

Mangual

thorough

more helpful

rejected

as

inadequate, by the district court.

The trial

judge

made the

considering the Rule 50(a) motion:

following

statement

after

cannot take

that I

judicial notice of

don t even

know which is

a place

the place.

We cannot, by any stretch of the imagination,

and

even viewing the

most

favorable to

reasonable

evidence in

the [plaintiff],

conclusion

where she fell, which

is, we
which

. . . that

of the

reach a
the place

we don t know where it

don t know which gate,

area

the light

airport,

we don t know
was

under the

control of the Ports Authority . . . .

Our

independent

evaluation

plaintiff managed to

trial

of

produce on

the

paucity

of

this point after

evidence

the

nine days

of

draws us inexorably to the same conclusion -- the evidence

produced by the plaintiff

was insufficient to withstand judgment

for the defendants as a matter of law.

-11-

We conclude

the

defendants

Rule

that the

50(a)

district court

motion.

The

properly granted

plaintiff had

opportunity at trial to produce evidence from which

of

the accident and the

ownership and control

ample

the location

of that location

could be determined, but she failed to do so.

B. Pre- and Post-Trial Rulings

B. Pre- and Post-Trial Rulings
_______________________________

The plaintiff

next challenges

trial rulings by the district court.

several pre-

and post-

1. Discovery
1. Discovery
_____________

The plaintiff asserts that

prematurely ordering

that discovery be concluded

to extend the discovery

court

deadline.

improperly decided

based on a conference

the district court erred in

that no

She argues that

court s

deadline

for abuse

the district

further discovery

was needed

in which an attorney previously

by the plaintiff purported to act as her counsel.

district

when it failed

decision

refusing

of discretion.

to

extend

dismissed

We review the

the

discovery

Mulero-Rodr guez
________________

v. Ponte,
______

Inc., 98 F.3d 670, 679 (1st Cir. 1996).

____

The

persuasiveness

of

the

plaintiff s

undercut by its lack of supporting legal authority.

argument

is

In fact, the

relevant

position.

extant

authority

runs

contrary

to

the

plaintiff s

As we have noted, courts have discretion

under the inherent power

in [them]
to

achieve

necessarily vested

to manage their own

the

orderly

and

affairs so as
expeditious

disposition of cases.

-12-

Luis C. Forteza & Hijos, Inc.

______________________________

v. Mills, 534 F.2d

_____

415, 418 (1st

Cir. 1976) (quoting Link v. Wabash, 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)).
____
______

The minutes

indicate that the

conducting the

properly

conference.

limited purpose of

discovery was

extend

the

did not abuse

At

status conference

his discretion

that conference the

plaintiff s

former

any pending discovery.

pending.

The trial

in

trial judge

counsel

granting him permission to withdraw

the same time made an appropriate

to the status of

no

March 16, 1995,

trial judge

recognized

case and at

of the

for

the

from the

inquiry of him as

Counsel

indicated that

judge s decision

not to

discovery at that time based on counsel s response was an

appropriate exercise

fact that the

of his case management

case had

been languishing on

authority given the

the district

court

docket for more than four years and there had been ample time for

discovery

the

There was still

an opportunity for

plaintiff s successor counsel to attempt in a timely fashion

to have

after

to be completed.

the deadline extended.

appearing in this case

request was filed

on the

discovery.

trial

The

discovery, and the

opportunity,

attorneys,

However, he waited for one month

to request an

day before the

judge

had

second-guess the

existing deadline

provided

ample

time

for

for

plaintiff s failure to take advantage of that

whether attributable

does

extension, and that

not provide

trial

to her

an adequate

personally or

to her

basis

now to

judge s determination

years, the time to conclude discovery had come.

-13-

for us

that, after

four

2. Entry of Default
2. Entry of Default
____________________

The

should have

plaintiff also

entered a default

failure to answer

motion to become

is

asserts

the district

against the defendants

court

for their

her amended complaint rather than allowing the

moot.

As we have noted,

itself a drastic sanction that

extreme

that

situation.

Forteza, 534
_______

[a] default judgment

should be employed only in an

F.2d at 419;

cf. Anderson v.
___ ________

Beatrice Foods Co.,

___________________

abuse,

900 F.2d

388,

while sanctionable, does not

imposition

of

most severe

498 U.S. 891 (1990).

396 (1st

Cir.)

(discovery

require as a

matter of law

sanctions available),

cert. denied,
____________

The facts of this

case do not present

an

extreme situation justifying the entry of default.

It is

certainly

plaintiff took no action in

to

answer until

passed.

In

more

materially

nothing

without

years

after the

defendants had

record

to

suggest

that

the

failure

deadline

had

already answered

the

complaint and the amended

alter the plaintiff s theory

in the

significance

response to the defendants

than two

addition, the

plaintiff s initial

not

complaint did not

of the case.

that the

district

There is

court s

failure to enter a default judgment under these circumstances was

an abuse of discretion.

In another context, we have endorsed the

authority of district courts to impose less than the most extreme

sanction

abuse).

rested

available.

We will

within

See
___

Anderson, 900
________

F.2d at

not upset the district court s

its

sound discretion,

judgment against the defendants.

-14-

not

to

396 (discovery

decision, which

enter a

default

3. Exclusion of Plaintiff s Expert Witness

3. Exclusion of Plaintiff s Expert Witness
___________________________________________

The

plaintiff

improperly barred

next

her from amending her

include her loss-of-income

loss-of-income expert

or

argues that

expert.

the

district

court

pretrial submissions to

She argues that allowing her

to testify would have

prejudice to the defendants because

created no surprise

he was known to them and

that excluding him deprived the plaintiff of her right to present

those facts to the jury.

We need not reach

the plaintiff failed to

the merits of this argument.

establish the defendants

Since

liability, the

district court s ruling on this matter did not affect the outcome

of the case.

4.

Costs and Expenses

4. Costs and Expenses

______________________

Finally, the plaintiff seeks the

she incurred at trial.

costs and expenses

Since the plaintiff did not prevail at

trial and has provided neither justification nor legal authority

to support her claim that she is entitled to costs and expenses

as a non-prevailing party, we find no abuse of discretion in the

trial court s decision not to award her any costs or expenses.

Conclusion
Conclusion
__________

For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the

district court is affirmed.

affirmed
________

Costs are awarded to the defendants.

-15-