Committee of Unsecured Creditors for ESJ Towers, I v. AIG INSURANCE COMPANY - PUERTO RICO et al

-1-
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
27
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
IN RE
ESJ TOWERS INC
Debtor
CASE NO. 22-01676 (ESL)
CHAPTER 11
COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED
CREDITORS FOR ESJ TOWERS, INC.
Plaintiffs
vs.
AIG INSURANCE COMPANY - PUERTO
RICO; ARCO PUBLICIDAD, LLC;
BALLHER, CORP.; DE ANGEL &
COMPANIA CPA, LLC; ECOLAB
MANUFACTURING, INC.; LIBERTY
MOBILE PUERTO RICO, INC.;
MCCLOSKEY & BONNIN VALUATION
GROUP, PSC; RCI, LLC; AND WHITE
RHINO, INC.
Defendants
ADVERSARY NO. 24-00041
FILED AND ENTERED 4/9/2026
OPINION AND ORDER
This adversary proceeding is before the court upon the Motion for Relief from Judgement
as Void and for Stay of Discovery filed by De Angel & Compañia CPA, LLC (“DAC”) on
January 9, 2026 (“Motion for Relief from Judgement”, dkt. #66), the response of the Official
Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “UCC” or the “Committee”) (dkt. #69), and the
Defendants’ reply (dkt. #80).
For the reasons stated herein, the Motion for Relief from Judgement is DENIED
Factual and Procedural Background
1. 	On June 10, 2022, the Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter
11 and began managing its affairs and operating its business as a debtor-in-possession. See
Case:24-00041-ESL Doc#:81 Filed:04/09/26 Entered:04/09/26 12:04:06 Desc: Main
Document Page 1 of 8

-2-
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
27
Bankr. dkt. #1. DAC was listed as a non-priority unsecured creditor in Schedule E/F. See id., p.
30.
2. 	Thereafter, on August 3, 2022, the Debtor filed an Application for appointment
of DAC as auditor for debtor (Bankr. dkt. #64), which was granted (Bankr. dkt. #85).
3. 	On June 3, 2024, the Committee filed an adversary complaint against DAC and
other defendants seeking to avoid and recover post-petition transfers received by DAC under
Sections 549(a) and 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, inter alia (dkt. # 1). See also Bankr. dkt.
#1850.
4. 	On June 10, 2024, the Committee filed a Certificate of Service (dkt. #19)
certifying service of summons and the complaint via priority mail on June 8, 2024, to “DE
ANGEL & COMPA[Ñ]IA CPA LLC” at “PO BOX 5460[,] Caguas[,] PR 00726-5460” (id.).
5. 	On September 3, 2024, default was entered against DAC. See dkt. #42, 43.
6. 	On October 10, 2024, the court entered a Partial Judgment by Default against
DAC in the amount of $1,377.75, plus costs (dkt. #55).
7. 	On December 26, 2025, the Committee filed a Motion to Compel DAC’s Post-
Judgement Interrogatory Answers, and for Fees and Sanctions (“Motion to Compel”, dkt. #65).
8. 	On January 9, 2026, DAC filed the Motion for Relief from Judgement (dkt. #66)
alleging that service of the summons and complaint failed to comply with Fed. R. Bankr. P.
7004(b)(3) and 14 L.P.R.A. § 3781 by failing to “identif[y] any qualifying officer or agent” (id.,
p. 5, § C), warranting relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). DAC also requests a protective order
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, that post-judgment discovery be quashed, the Committee’s motion to
compel be denied, and that discovery be stayed.
9. 	The court ordered the Committee to state its position to the Motion for Relief from
Judgement and held the Motion to Compel in abeyance pending a decision on the former. See
Order, dkt. #67.
10. 	On January 19, 2026, the Committee filed a Response to DAC’s Motion for Relief
from Judgement and for Discovery Stay (dkt. #69), averring that Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7004(b)(3)
Case:24-00041-ESL Doc#:81 Filed:04/09/26 Entered:04/09/26 12:04:06 Desc: Main
Document Page 2 of 8

-3-
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
27
“did not require the Committee to identify [] an individual” when “the plaintiff opts to serve an
agent that is ‘authorized by appointment[,]’ ” (id., p. 4-5), and because DAC’s registered resident
agent is DAC pursuant to Sections 3542 and 3954 of the Puerto Rico General Corporation Act,
14 L.P.R.A. §§ 3542 and 3954, DAC may receive service of process and the Committee had no
obligation to serve a DAC officer or any other individual agent.
11. 	On February 17, 2026, DAC filed a Reply in Support of Motion for Relief From
Void Judgment and for Discovery Stay (dkt. #80). Among other arguments, DAC clarifies that
“there is no question that, prior to the Committee’s filing of the motion to compel on December
26, 2025 (Dkt. 65), DAC had alerted the Committee to the nullity of judgment for lack of proper
service of process to DAC. That fact is undisputed here, as reflected in the redacted email
correspondence from undersigned to Committee counsel sent on December 19, 2025, and
included as Exhibit B of the Motion to Compel in Dkt. 65 …” (id., p. 6).
Applicable Law and Analysis
(A) 	Motion for Reconsideration Standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
Motions for reconsideration “are not recognized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
or the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure in haec verba.” In re Mujica, 470 B.R. 251, 253
(Bankr. D.P.R. 2012), aff'd, 492 B.R. 355 (D.P.R. 2013). See also Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. &
Tool Works Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 173 (5th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 859 (1993), abrogated
on other grounds by Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075–76 (5th Cir. 1994); In re
Pabon Rodriguez, 233 B.R. 212, 218 (Bankr. D.P.R. 1999), aff'd, 2000 WL 35916017 (B.A.P. 1st
Cir. 2000), aff'd, 17 F. App'x 5 (1st Cir. 2001), citing Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241,
1243 (10th Cir. 1991); Portugues–Santa v. B. Fernandez Hermanos, Inc., 614 F.Supp.2d 221, 225
(D.P.R. 2009); In re Martinez, 2013 WL 3808076, at *4 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2013); In re Acosta, 497
B.R. 25, 31 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2013). Rather, federal courts have considered motions so denominated
as either a motion to “alter or amend” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or a motion for relief of
Case:24-00041-ESL Doc#:81 Filed:04/09/26 Entered:04/09/26 12:04:06 Desc: Main
Document Page 3 of 8

-4-
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
27
judgment or order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)1 . See Fisher v. Kadant, Inc., 589 F.3d 505, 512 (1st
Cir. 2009) (noting a motion for reconsideration implicated either Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60(b)).
“These two rules are distinct; they serve different purposes and produce different
consequences. Which rule applies depends essentially on the time a motion is served. If a motion
is served within [fourteen (14)] days of the rendition of judgment, the motion ordinarily will fall
under Rule 59(e). If the motion is served after that time, it falls under Rule 60(b).” Pabon
Rodriguez, 233 B.R. at 219, quoting Van Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243.
“The substance of the motion, not the nomenclature used or labels placed on motions, is
controlling.” In re Lozada Rivera, 470 B.R. 109, 112–113 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2012). Thus, for
example, even if filed within the time limit for a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), a motion
seeking relief on grounds of “excusable neglect” will be treated as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)
motion, because Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) does not provide a vehicle for a party to undo its own
procedural failures. See In re Lozada Rivera, 470 B.R. at 113, citing 12–60 Moore's Federal
Practice Civil § 60.03. Also see United States v. $23,000 in U.S. Currency, 356 F.3d 157, 164–
165 (1st Cir. 2004) (even if timely filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), a motion seeking relief on
grounds of excusable neglect will be treated as Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) motion, because Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e) does not provide a vehicle for party to undo its own procedural failures); Jennings
v. Rivers, 394 F.3d 850, 854–856 (10th Cir. 2005) (a motion timely filed under Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) but asserting ground for relief specified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), should be evaluated
under standards applicable to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) “attempts to balance the interest in the stability of judgments with
the interest in seeing that judgments not become instruments of oppression and fraud.” Alan N.
Resnick and Henry J. Sommer, 10 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 9024.03 (16th ed. 2024). Hence, “the
court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” where “the judgment is
void”. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4).
1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)(1) are made applicable to adversary proceedings under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023 and
9024, respectively.
Case:24-00041-ESL Doc#:81 Filed:04/09/26 Entered:04/09/26 12:04:06 Desc: Main
Document Page 4 of 8

-5-
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
27
“Failure to effect service as provided by Rule 7004(b)(3) will render service of process
insufficient, and will deprive the bankruptcy court of personal jurisdiction over the defendant
corporation. If the court does not have personal jurisdiction, any order or judgment entered by the
court is void for lack of personal jurisdiction.” Maloni v. Fairway Wholesale Corp. (In Re
Maloni), 282 B.R. 727, 731 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2002). “[L]ack of personal jurisdiction renders the
judgment void and its nullity may be attacked at any time.” Id., at 732
(B) 	Service of Process on a Corporation
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)-(j) authorizes the following pertinent methods of service:
(e) Serving an Individual Within a Judicial District of the United States. Unless
federal law provides otherwise, an individual--other than a minor, an incompetent
person, or a person whose waiver has been filed--may be served in a judicial district
of the United States by:
(1) following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts
of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where
service is made; or
…
(h) Serving a Corporation, Partnership, or Association. Unless federal law
provides otherwise or the defendant's waiver has been filed, a domestic or foreign
corporation, or a partnership or other unincorporated association that is subject to
suit under a common name, must be served:
(1) in a judicial district of the United States:
(A) in 	the 	manner 	prescribed 	by Rule 	4(e)(1) 	for 	serving 	an
individual; or
(B) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to
an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent
authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of
process and--if the agent is one authorized by statute and the
statute so requires--by also mailing a copy of each to the
defendant; or
(2) …
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)-(j) (boldface added).
There are two relevant sources in Puerto Rico law which govern service upon corporations
as authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e): the Puerto Rico Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Puerto
Case:24-00041-ESL Doc#:81 Filed:04/09/26 Entered:04/09/26 12:04:06 Desc: Main
Document Page 5 of 8

-6-
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
27
Rico General Corporations Act. Under the Puerto Rico Rules of Civil Procedure, a corporation
may be served by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to “any … agent
authorized by appointment or designated by law to receive service of process.” 32 L.P.R.A. Ap.
V, R. 4.4(e) (Official Translation). Under the Puerto Rico General Corporations Act, a corporate
entity may be properly served by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to its registered
or “resident” agent (“agente residente” in Spanish), as follows:
(a) Service of legal process upon any corporation of the Commonwealth shall be
made by delivering a copy personally to any officer or director of the corporation in
the 	Commonwealth, 	or 	the 	registered 	agent 	of 	the 	corporation 	in 	the
Commonwealth, or by leaving it at the dwelling house or usual place of abode in the
Commonwealth of any officer, director or registered agent (if the registered agent
be an individual), or at the registered office or other place of business of the
corporation in the Commonwealth. If the registered agent be a corporation,
service of process upon it as such agent may be made by serving, in the
Commonwealth, a copy thereof on the president, vice-president, secretary,
assistant secretary or any director of the corporate registered agent …
14 L.P.R.A. § 3781(a) (Service of Process on Corporations) (Official Translation) (boldface
added). See also 14 L.P.R.A. § 3542 (Registered Agent) (Official Translation).
In addition to the above, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7004 provides the following alternate methods
of service:
(b) Service by Mail as an Alternative. Except as provided in subdivision (h), in
addition to the methods of service authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)-(j), a copy of
a summons and complaint may be served by first-class mail, postage prepaid,
within the United States on:
…
(3) a domestic … corporation, or a partnership or other unincorporated
association--by mailing the copy:
(A) to an officer, a managing or general agent, or an agent
authorized by appointment or by law to receive service; and
(B) also to the defendant if a statute authorizes an agent to receive
service and the statute so requires;
…
(i) Service of Process by Title. This subdivision (i) applies to service on a domestic
or foreign corporation or partnership or other unincorporated association under
Rule 7004(b)(3) … The defendant's officer or agent need not be correctly named in
Case:24-00041-ESL Doc#:81 Filed:04/09/26 Entered:04/09/26 12:04:06 Desc: Main
Document Page 6 of 8

-7-
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
27
the address--or even be named--if the envelope is addressed to the defendant's
proper address and officer's or agent's position or title
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7004(b)(3), (i) (boldface added). Importantly, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7004 “does not
require proof of actual receipt, it requires only that the summons and complaint be mailed.” See
In re Laboy, 2010 WL 427780, at *8 (Bankr. D.P.R. Feb. 2, 2010) (citation omitted).
(C) 	Discussion
The court takes judicial notice under Fed. R. Evid. 201 that DAC registered itself as its
resident agent, as published under Register No. 226 on the Registry of Corporations and Entities
of the Puerto Rico Department of State.2 As such, and pursuant to 14 L.P.R.A. § 3781(a), DAC
is designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of DAC. The court also notes that
DAC has one (1) authorized person, an individual (Carlos E. De Angel Ramirez), and three (3)
administrators, all individuals (a president, vice president, and treasurer).3 The court further notes
that the priority mail slip is addressed to “DE ANGEL & COMPA[Ñ]IA CPA LLC” (dkt. #19),
and is not directed to an officer or agent’s position or title.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1) authorizes service in accordance with state law. Under the Puerto
Rico General Corporations Act, if the registered or “resident” agent is a corporation, service
requires service on its president, vice-president, secretary, assistant secretary or any director of
the corporate registered agent. See 14 L.P.R.A. § 3781(a). Under Rule 4.4(e) of the Puerto Rico
Rules of Civil Procedure, however, a corporation may be served through an agent authorized by
appointment or designated by law. See 32 L.P.R.A. Ap. V, R. 4.4(e).
Here, the Committee served summons and a copy of the complaint on DAC’s resident
agent, to an address that corresponds to such resident agent, as available in the Registry of
Corporations and Entities of the Department of State for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The
court finds that service was proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1) (service on an individual) and
(h)(1)(A) (service on a corporate entity) by virtue of Rule 4.4(e). On the same vein, the court finds
that service was proper under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7004(b)(3), which authorizes service on a
2 	See 	Commonwealth 	of 	P.R. 	Dep’t. 	of 	State, 	Registry 	of 	Corporations 	and 	Entities,
https://rcp.estado.pr.gov/en/entity-information?c=226-711 (last visited April 8, 2026).
3 Ibid.
Case:24-00041-ESL Doc#:81 Filed:04/09/26 Entered:04/09/26 12:04:06 Desc: Main
Document Page 7 of 8

-8-
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
27
corporation through an agent authorized by appointment or designated by law. The court further
finds that the Committee has met its burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over DAC. The
default judgment against DAC is thus not void under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) for lack of personal
jurisdiction due to improper service.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, the Motion for Relief from Judgement (dkt. #66) is DENIED.
DAC shall state its position to the Motion to Compel (dkt. #65) within twenty-one (21)
days.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 9 th day of April 2026.
Case:24-00041-ESL Doc#:81 Filed:04/09/26 Entered:04/09/26 12:04:06 Desc: Main
Document Page 8 of 8