FUENTES MOLINA et al v. COOP A/C BARRIO QUEBRADA et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case:09-00104-ESL Doc#:21 Filed:09/17/09 Entered:09/23/09 11:38:50 Desc: Main

SI NH OD & WD

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AUTHENTICATED /4

Document Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

IN RE:

EDWIN FUENTES MOLINA
OLGA ACEVEDO PEREZ
D/B/A VAQUERIA EDWIN FUENTES CASE NUMBER 08-02894- ESL

CHAPTER 12
DEBTORS

THE ESTATE OF
EDWIN FUENTES MOLINA
OLGA ACEVEDO PEREZ

Plaintiffs
ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NUMBER:
Vs.

COOP. A/C BO. QUEBRADA
DE CAMUY

09-0104

Defendants

OPINION AND ORDER

This adversary proceeding is before de court upon the motion to dismiss filed by defendant
Cooperativa de Ahorro y Credito Quebrada de Camuy (“‘Cooperativa”) and the opposition thereto
by plaintiff. Cooperativa alleges that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted because it lacks supporting evidence of the value of the collateral. Plaintiff opposes the
motion stating that it has supplied defendant with an appraisal of the real property object of the
complaint and that the pleadings, particularly paragraph 10 clearly sets forth the value of the
property. For the reasons set forth below the motion to dismiss is hereby denied.

THE COMPLAINT

The complaint essentially seeks a declaratory judgment to determine the extent of

Cooperativa’s security, if any, and its secured status. Paragraphs 6 through 11 describe the property

U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
GPO

Cadke:09-00104-ESL Doc#:21 Filed:09/17/09 Entered:09/23/09 11:38:50 Desc: Main

SD ee

10
i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Document Page 2 of 3

-2-
of the estate over which Cooperativa claims to have a security. Paragraphs 12 through 15 describe
the liens affecting the property and debtors’ claim for exemptions. Paragraph 13 specifically alleges
that the value of the property as of petition date is $154,000. Paragraphs 16 through 26 describe the
legal basis for plaintiff’ s request to determine that there is no equity in the property, after considering
liens senior to Cooperativa, and, thus, Cooperativa holds an unsecured claim.. The court is not
passing upon the merits of the allegations in the complaint. The court narrates what the complaint

states for purposes of deciding the motion to dismiss.

STANDARD MOTION TO DISMISS

Motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted are governed
by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which provides that a defense of “failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted” to a claim for relief may be presented by motion before the
filing of a responsive pleading. A motion to dismiss a counterclaim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) is available to test a claim for relief in any pleading, including a defendant’s counterclaim.

See 5B Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d_ § 1356 at 368-369.

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted

as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937,

1949 173 L. Ed. 2d. 868 (2009) citing Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1974. Thus, a

“complaint must plead facts ‘that raise a right to relief above the speculative level’” Dixon v.
Shamrock Fin. Corp., 522 F. 3d 76, 79 (1* Cir, 2008); Cook v. Gates, 528 F. 3d 42, 48 (1* Cir.
2008); Gray v. Evercore Restructuring L.L.C., 544 F. 3d 320, 324 (1* Cir. 2008); Gagliardi v.

Sullivan, 513 F. 3d 301, 305 (1* Cir. 2008);_Perez Acevedo v. Rivero-Cubano at 29; Trans-Spec

Truck Serv. v. Caterpillar Inc., 524 F. 3d 315, 320 (1* Cir. 2008); Citibank Global Markets, Inc. v.

Rodriguez Santana, 573 F. 3d 17 (1* Cir. 2009). “Because a dismissal terminates an action at the

earliest stages of the litigation, without a developed factual basis for decision, the court must
carefully balance the rule of simplified civil pleading against the need for something more than
conclusory allegations. Washington Legal Foundation v. Massachusetts Bar Foundation, 993 F. 2d
962, 971 (1* Cir. 1993). The court will not accept unsupported conclusions or interpretations of the
law. Id.

Cade:09-00104-ESL Doc#:21 Filed:09/17/09 Entered:09/23/09 11:38:50 Desc: Main

ao SN NHN WN

\O

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Document Page 3 of 3

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

After a careful review of the allegations of the complaint, as summarized above, and
thoughtful consideration of applicable law, the court finds and concludes that the complaint pleads
with sufficient factual specificity and legal support plausible claims for relief questioning the secured
status of Cooperativa’s claim. Therefore, Cooperativa’s motion to dismiss is hereby denied.

IT IS SO ORDE p:

Dated this /7 F: September, 2009, in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

7TTENRIQUE S. LAMOUTTE
»S. Bankruptcy Judge