Anza Capital Partners, LLC v. Acosta-Devoz et al

Filing 36

OPINION and ORDER denying 12 Motion for Partial Dismissal. Signed by Judge Salvador E. Casellas on 10/6/11. (PR)

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