Anza Capital Partners, LLC v. Acosta-Devoz et al, No. 3:2011cv01038 - Document 36 (D.P.R. 2011)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER denying 12 Motion for Partial Dismissal. Signed by Judge Salvador E. Casellas on 10/6/11. (PR)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 1 2 3 ANZA CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC 4 Plaintiff, Civil No. 11-1038 (SEC) 5 v. 6 EDWIN ACOSTA-DEVOZ, et al. 7 Defendants. 8 OPINION & ORDER 9 10 Before the Court are co-defendants Edwin Acosta-Devoz, Liliana Martinez, and their 11 conjugal partnership (collectively Defendants ) Motion for Partial Dismissal (Docket # 12), 12 and plaintiff Anza Capital Partners, LLC s ( Plaintiff ) opposition thereto (Docket # 28). After 13 reviewing the filings and the applicable law, Defendants motion is DENIED. 14 Background 15 Plaintiff filed this diversity breach of contract suit against Defendants and their wholly 16 owned corporations. Docket # 1.1 Among other things, Plaintiff s complaint moves the Court 17 to hold Defendants personally liable under the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil. Id. 18 Defendants timely moved to dismiss the claims against them, stating that Plaintiff s complaint 19 fails to set forth the elements of such doctrine. Docket # 12. Specifically, Defendants argue that 20 (1) Plantiffs allegations, if in merit, should be directed solely towards the legal entities with 21 which Plaintiff did business ; (2) Defendants corporations were not used as alter egos; and (3) 22 Defendants corporations were not used to promote fraud, evade obligations and/or frustrate 23 public policy. Id. at ¶¶ 10-11. Plaintiff opposed, arguing that their complaint as drafted 24 withstands dismissal. Docket # 28. 25 1 26 Allegedly, Defendants contracted to sell 1,000 metric tons of scrap metal to Plaintiff but failed to deliver the agreed upon quantities. Id. Plaintiff also sued the individuals who brokered the transaction. Id. Civil No. 11-1038 (SEC) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 2 Applicable Law and Analysis An extended discussion of the standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is unnecessary in this case. It suffices to say that to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must allege a plausible entitlement to relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 559 (2007). In this case, however, the Court is disinclined to delve into this type of analysis, as Defendants motion falters for much simpler reasons. It is well-settled that a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim has no purpose other than to test the formal sufficiency of the statement of the claim for relief. 5A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice § 1355, p. 354 (3d ed. 2004). In other words, the motion is not a procedure for resolving a contest between the parties about the facts or the substantive merits of the plaintiff s case. Id. Further, the burden of persuasion in these types of motions fall first on the movant, who must show that the complaint as drafted affords no legal recourse to the plaintiff. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 559. 14 In this case, the three arguments highlighted above, rather than questioning the 15 sufficiency of the averments in Plaintiff s complaint, challenge the facts and the substantive 16 merits of Plaintiff s case. Therefore, Defendants s motion falls far short of meeting the requite 17 burden of proof. 18 19 Conclusion 20 Based on the foregoing discussion, the Court DENIES Defendants motion. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 6th day of October, 2011. 23 24 25 26 s/ Salvador E. Casellas SALVADOR E. CASELLAS U.S. Senior District Judge Civil No. 11-1038 (SEC) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3
]]>
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.
