Ramirez de Arellano v. Sandrine Corporation, No. 3:2011cv01289 - Document 14 (D.P.R. 2012)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 7 MOTION to dismiss filed by Sandrine Corporation. Signed by Judge Jose A Fuste on 3/15/2012.(mrj)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO TEMISTOCLES RAMIREZ DE ARELLANO, 5 6 Civil No. 11-1289 (JAF) Plaintiff, v. 7 8 SANDRINE CORPORATION, Defendant. 9 10 11 12 Plaintiff brings this suit in diversity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiff alleges 13 violations of Commonwealth law for violating the terms of a joint venture agreement, for failing 14 to pay money on an open account, and for unjust enrichment. (Docket No. 1.) Defendant moves 15 for dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Docket No. 7.) Plaintiff 16 opposes. (Docket No. 8.) OPINION AND ORDER 17 I. 18 Factual Summary 19 We draw the following summary of the factual allegations from Plaintiff s complaint. 20 (Docket No. 1.) Plaintiff conducts his commercial business under the name Traico in San 21 Juan, Puerto Rico. (Docket No. 1.) Defendant is a Florida corporation with its principal place 22 of business and officers both located in Florida. (Docket Nos. 1; 7.) Plaintiff alleges that in 23 March 2006, Plaintiff and Defendant agreed to each contribute fifty percent of the purchase price Civil No. 11-1289 (JAF) -2- 1 of chemical products, sold by Eli Lilly in Puerto Rico, to be resold by either Traico or Sandrine 2 to third parties and share equally in the net profits from those sales. (Docket No. 1 at 2.) Traico 3 shipped some of the chemical products, including 15,800 kilograms of Dextro Carbonyl 4 Base/ D-Oxyphene Base ( DOB ) to Sandrine in Florida. (Id. at 2 3.) Plaintiff alleges that 5 on July 14, 2008, Defendant sold 15,800 kilograms of DOB to Wockhardt Limited, an Indian 6 company, for $150,100. (Id. at 3; 1-1.) 7 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant provided Plaintiff with a false invoice indicating that the 8 15,800 kilograms of DOB were sold for $90,060 (instead of the actual purchase price of 9 $150,100). (Docket Nos. 1 at 3; 1-2.) Plaintiff alleges that when questioned about the lesser 10 purchase price, Defendant made written and oral assurances of prompt payment. (Docket No. 1 11 at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that in exchange for its oral and written assurances, Defendant was 12 granted payments terms, which were also of benefit of the Defendant. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff 13 alleges that Defendant refused to honor its written and oral assurances and refused to compensate 14 Plaintiff. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff alleges that Sandrine breached its obligation to share equally in the 15 net proceeds from the sale of the DOB, and did not pay Traico the monies owed in a timely 16 manner. Id. 17 Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has failed to fulfill its oral and written 18 assurances to pay for its half of the storage costs for other jointly-owned chemical products, as 19 well as the environmental impact and waste disposal costs for the chemical products in storage. 20 (Docket No. 1 at 4 5.) Plaintiff filed this complaint on March 24, 2011, requesting damages of 21 half of the profits from the DOB sale, half of the storage costs for the unsold chemical products, Civil No. 11-1289 (JAF) -3- 1 and half of the cost of waste disposal and environmental assessments, in addition to interest and 2 attorney s fees. (Docket No. 1 at 5.) 3 II. 4 Standard Under Rule 12(b)(6) 5 A defendant may move to dismiss an action, based solely on the complaint, for the 6 plaintiff s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 7 In assessing such a motion, we accept[] all well-pleaded facts as true, and we draw all 8 reasonable inferences in favor of the [plaintiff]. Wash. Legal Found. v. Mass. Bar Found., 993 9 F.2d 962, 971 (1st Cir. 1993). [A]n adequate complaint must provide fair notice to the 10 defendants and state a facially plausible legal claim. Ocasio-Hernández v. Fortuño-Burset, 640 11 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011). In considering a complaint s adequacy, we disregard statements in 12 the complaint that merely offer legal conclusions couched as fact or threadbare recitals of the 13 elements of a cause of action. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We then take as true what 14 remains, [n]onconclusory factual allegations . . . even if seemingly incredible. Id. On the 15 basis of those properly-pled facts, we assess the reasonableness of the inference of liability that 16 the plaintiff is asking the court to draw. Id. at 13. Specific facts are not necessary; the 17 statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon 18 which it rests. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) 19 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 559). An unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me 20 accusation will not suffice to demonstrate a plausible entitlement to relief. See Sanchez v. Civil No. 11-1289 (JAF) -4- 1 Pereira-Castillo, 590 F.3d 31, 37 (1st Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 2 1949 (2009)). 3 III. 4 Analysis 5 In response to Plaintiff s three claims, Defendant argues that Plaintiff: (1) fails to 6 establish the elements of a joint venture agreement; (2) fails to properly allege an open account 7 claim; and (3) cannot raise an unjust enrichment claim in tort because it has already alleged a 8 contract claim regarding the same events and agreement. However, Defendant s opposition 9 assumes that Florida law applies to this case; we reexamine this assumption before addressing 10 the merits. We discuss each claim in turn, and for the reasons laid out below, we deny 11 Defendant s motion. 12 A. Choice of Law 13 Plaintiff and Defendant disagree about whether Puerto Rico or Florida law should apply 14 to the claims arising out of the alleged contract. Federal courts sitting in diversity apply the 15 choice of law rules of the forum state. Montalvo v. Gonzalez-Amparo, 587 F.3d 43, 46 (1st Cir. 16 2009) (citing Day & Zimmerman, Inc. v. Challoner, 423 U.S. 3, 4 (1975)). Puerto Rico has 17 adopted the dominant or significant contacts test for contract claims. Wojciechowicz v. 18 United States, 474 F. Supp. 2d 291, 295 (D.P.R. 2007) (citing New Ponce Shopping Ctr. v. 19 Integrand Assur. Co., 86 F.3d 265, 266 (1st Cir. 1996)). Under that test, the laws of the 20 jurisdiction with the most significant contacts to the disputed issues will apply. New Ponce 21 Shopping Ctr., 86 F.3d at 267 (citing A.M. Capen s Co. v. Am. Trading & Prod. Corp., 74 F.3d Civil No. 11-1289 (JAF) -5- 1 317, 320 (1st Cir. 1996)). Important factors to consider are: (a) the place of contracting; (b) the 2 place of negotiation of the contract; (c) the place of performance; (d) the location of the subject 3 matter of the contract; and (e) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and 4 place of business of the parties. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Occidental Intern., 140 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 5 1998) (citing Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws § 188 (1971)). 6 The disputed agreement at issue in this case is one allegedly made to evenly share in the 7 costs of purchasing chemicals from Eli Lilly to resell them and then split the profits evenly 8 between the two parties. Examination of the first three factors offers little guidance, as it is 9 unclear in what state the majority of the negotiations took place, and Plaintiff and Defendant are 10 domiciled in Puerto Rico and Florida, respectively. The parties e-mail communications (Docket 11 No. 1-3) took place in both Florida and Puerto Rico. The agreement allegedly authorized both 12 parties to resell product to third parties in either location. However, the parties agreed that the 13 chemicals would be purchased from Eli Lily in Puerto Rico, initiating the alleged contract. 14 Plaintiff alleges that it has stored the unsold chemicals in Puerto Rico and has paid for waste 15 disposal and environmental assessments in Puerto Rico. 16 Factors point toward both jurisdictions, but we believe that the balance tips towards 17 Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is the jurisdiction with the most significant contacts because the event 18 giving rise to this alleged joint venture between the two parties was the purchase of the 19 chemicals from Eli Lilly in Puerto Rico, the parties left the chemicals in Puerto Rico until they 20 were resold, and the environmental impact and waste disposal costs have been accrued by 21 Plaintiff in Puerto Rico. Therefore, Puerto Rico substantive law will apply. Civil No. 11-1289 (JAF) 1 B. -6- Joint Venture 2 Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has failed to allege the essential elements of a joint 3 venture claim. Although joint ventures are recognized under Puerto Rico law,1 Defendant cites 4 only Florida law in support of its arguments. (Docket No. 7 at 5.) In turn, Plaintiff merely 5 points out the fact that Defendant cites to the wrong supporting law. (Docket No. 8 at 5.) 6 Although Defendant s argument might have been meritorious, we cannot consider it, because 7 as discussed above, Puerto Rico not Florida law controls this case and Defendant has made 8 no arguments under the appropriate jurisdiction s law. See United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 9 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990) ( [I]ssues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some 10 effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived. ). 11 C. Open Account 12 Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to state the elements of an open account cause 13 of action, but again cites no Puerto Rico cases or statutes to support this allegation. (Docket 14 No. 7 at 7.) Again, we will not entertain such an undeveloped argument. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 15 17 (1st Cir. 1990). 16 D. Unjust Enrichment 17 Defendant again cites Florida law to argue that Plaintiff cannot recover under an unjust 18 enrichment cause of action because the damages alleged stem from a contract. (Docket No. 7 1 Planned Credit of P.R., Inc. v. Page, 3 P.R. Offic. Trans. 341 (P.R. 1975) (citing 2 Rowley, On Partnership: Joint Adventures, § 52.1-52.20, at 459 89 (2d ed. 1960)). If Defendants had argued that there are no significant differences between the relevant substantive Florida law and Puerto Rico law, we might have been able to address the merits of their arguments. Civil No. 11-1289 (JAF) -7- 1 at 9.) Because Defendant has failed to introduce any Commonwealth law in support of this 2 argument, we again reject the contention without reaching its merits. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 3 (1st Cir. 1990). 4 IV. 5 Conclusion 6 For the foregoing reasons, we DENY Defendant s motion to dismiss without prejudice. 7 (Docket No. 7.) Commonwealth law controls in this diversity case, and Defendant may resubmit 8 its motion with the appropriate legal citations and arguments. 9 10 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. San Juan, Puerto Rico, this day the 15th day of March, 2012. s/José Antonio Fusté JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE U.S. District Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.