E.L.A. II, D.P.R. (); Hernández Agosto vs. Romero Barceló, 99 D.P.R. , (); Hernández Agosto vs. Romero Barceló. As to the notion of “disabled person” for job placement, law 68/99 “Norms for the right to .. 21 DPR /96); at the local level, this declaration is followed by the. Appropriate for a public of 0 to 99 years. Rafael defies the gravity from the beginning of his performance to the end, sometimes doing dangerous balances.
|Published (Last):||2 November 2007|
|PDF File Size:||9.76 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.9 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Eisen has also filed a motion to dismiss D.p.t.503 Complaint, whereby Mr. Eisen adopts and incorporates the arguments made by the Foster Wheeler Defendants in their motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs’ have opposed Defendants’ motions to dismiss Docket Nos. Having considered all the arguments, the Court now resolves the pending motions. It is well-settled, however, that a complaint should not be e.p.r.503 unless it appears beyond any doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would support a claim entitling him or her to relief.
Hot, Sexy, and Safer Productions, Inc. Ponce Federal Bank, F. The Court must accept as true the well pleaded factual averments contained in the complaint, while at the same time drawing all reasonable inferences from the allegations in favor of the plaintiff. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Dartmouth College, F. However, “[b]ecause only well pleaded facts are taken as true, we will not accept a complainant’s unsupported conclusions or interpretations of law. Massachusetts Bar Foundation, F. In opposing a Rule 12 b 6 motion to dismiss, “a plaintiff cannot expect a trial court to do his homework for him.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, F. Rather, the plaintiff has an affirmative responsibility to put his best foot forward in an effort to present a legal theory that will support his claim.
Plaintiff must set forth in his complaint “factual allegations, either direct or inferential, regarding each material element necessary to sustain recovery under some actionable theory. With the above principles in consideration, the Court proceeds to gleen the relevant facts as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint Docket No.
The facts in the allegations, taken as truthful and making all inferences in favor of Plaintiffs, reveal that sometime on or around February ofPlaintiffs Mr. Soon after the partnership agreement was entered into, all partners began investing substantial time and money towards the advancement of the partnership’s purpose. Foster Wheeler, for example, tendered funds that were used to pay for permits, expenses, licenses, and work contracted or performed in Puerto Rico, among others; meetings where held between the partners and third parties who were somehow connected to the project; and the parties began to negotiate with the Government of the Dominican Republic for the sale of electricity and the construction of the generating facility.
Around March ofthe negotiations with the Dominican Republic reached a stage wherein the Government of the Dominican Republic made clear its intention to enter into a contract with GEC and Foster Wheeler. Hence, the parties scheduled a meeting for March 28,in the Dominican Republic.
Rafael Sorryso – Made in Honolulu / Air Twist – Festival Mirabilia
However, a prior meeting was held in Puerto Rico on March 27, At that first v.p.r.503, Mr. Eisen, acting on behalf of Foster Wheeler, threatened Mr. Diaz and GEC with Foster Wheeler’s withdrawal from the partnership and further warned of boycotting the next day’s meeting in the Dominican Republic unless Plaintiffs agreed to alter terms and conditions for the partnership. Eisen, all with the knowledge and consent of Foster Wheeler.
Diaz, who was faced with the prospect of losing substantial amounts of previously invested money, time and effort should the project was aborted, was left with no alternative and, consequently, agreed under duress to Mr. A Stockholders Agreement was drafted or caused to be drafted by Mr.
Eisen and subsequently signed by Mr. Then, but only after Mr. Diaz had signed the document, Mr. Eisen agreed to accompany Mr. Diaz to the next day’s meeting for the signing of the contract with the Government of the Dominican Republic.
The agreement with the Dominican Republic was e.p.r.503 executed effective on April 18, Consequently, on or around NovemberFoster Wheeler, Mr. Moreover, as agent for the PRRRL, Foster Wheeler agreed to use its best efforts to obtain political risk insurance to meet the capital requirements. Notwithstanding, Foster Wheeler “procrastinated” and otherwise engaged in “insidious machinations” in the negotiations and signing of construction, operation and d.p.rr.503 agreements, “unreasonably” and “unjustifiably” changing the terms and conditions as the negotiations proceeded.
Foster Wheeler also failed to fulfill its obligations to obtain OPIC insurance and financing, did not deliver engineering plans and specifications owed to the Dominican Republic, and neglected to deliver documents promised to OPIC. Foster Wheeler’s “insidious machinations” caused Plaintiffs to incur in delays and violations of their commitment to commence the uninterrupted construction of the power plant in the Dominican Republic.
Foster Wheeler and GEC consequently conceded to the renegotiation of certain prior thereto agreed upon clauses in the contract entered into with CDE. Also, in October of Mr. Diaz was forced to request d.p.r.503 meeting wherein Mr. Eisen, other representatives from Foster Wheeler and representatives from Prudential discussed Foster Wheeler’s delays in delivering supporting technical documents and specifications. Prudential’s failure to submit reports as to Prudential’s financing efforts was also discussed.
Diaz resisted Foster Wheeler’s efforts. While all of the above related facts were occurring, Mr. Diaz continued to incur in expenses on behalf of the partnership. Under the partnership agreement, these expenses were mandated to be reimbursed by Foster Wheeler. Notwithstanding, only part of the expenses were reimbursed; and when Mrs. Diaz requested from Mr. Eisen that Foster Wheeler comply with the reimbursement, Mr. Eisen called for a meeting with Mr.
GENERADORA DE ELECTRICIDAD v. FOSTER WHEELER CORP | D.P.R. | Judgment | Law | CaseMine
In this meeting Mr. Eisen and Foster Wheeler agree to the contractually mandated reimbursement.
During Foster Wheeler continued to create unwarranted barriers for the smooth construction of the power dp.r.503. Joaquin Balaguer, President of the Dominican Republic. At that meeting, Dr. Pastorino, that the project had the wholehearted support of the Dominican Government. Foster Wheeler then announced to the press, the people of the Dominican Republic and the international community, their commitment to the power plant project. Notwithstanding, on March 30,Mr. Henry Bartoli from Foster Wheeler met with Mr.
Diaz attempted 999 convince Mr. Bartoli that Foster Wheeler should not to withdraw; Mr. Bartoli asked for additional time to further consider the matter. The following day, on March 31,Mr. Eisen communicated with the World Bank to determine the Bank’s financing feasibility for the project. When a positive response was obtained, Foster Wheeler presented Mr.
Diaz and GEC with a new contract and agreement and attempted again to force Mr. Diaz to renegotiate the terms of the partnership. Foster Wheeler also attempted to obtain from Mr. Diaz a complete release for any claim of damages resulting from Foster Wheeler’s prior actions and omissions. Diaz, however, balked and resisted Foster Wheeler’s reiterated pressure tactics. As a result of that meeting, Mr. Eisen once again recognized that Foster Wheeler was a party to the contract for the construction of a MW plant, acknowledged Foster Wheeler’s obligation to seek financing and OPIC insurance, and expressed Foster Wheeler’s continued interest in r.p.r.503 project.
Bartoli subsequently misinformed Mr. Diaz that Foster Wheeler no longer wanted to build a MW plant and demanded that new terms be dp.r.503. Bartoli also asserted to the Diaz’s that the Dominican Republic was only interested in a MW plant. Also, on April 28,Mr. Diaz objected to granting a waiver of their potential claims against Foster Wheeler. In response, Foster Wheeler declined to proceed with the partnership and the Dominican Republic power plant project.
Unbeknownst to GEC and to Mr. Diaz, however, by letter dated May 3,Mr. Diaz until April of ; that Foster Wheeler had forwarded to Mr. Diaz all of the technical data and information required by the Dominican Republic; and that Foster Wheeler had paid Mr. On May 26,Mr. Diaz confronted and advised of a potential legal action against Mr.
Eisen for his May 3rd letter to Miguel Sang Ben. Eisen admitted that the May 3rd letter contained untrue statements and offered to compensate Mr. Diaz initially rejected Mr.
Made in Honolulu
Diaz finally accepted a loan from Mr. Diaz, however, never released nor waived his rights. On JulyMr. Diaz received from Foster Wheeler the technical specifications .dp.r.503 had been requested several months prior thereto for the Dominican Republic. Diaz was informed that he could not use the forwarded technical information. Under the above factual scenario, on March 29,Plaintiffs filed the instant Complaint D.p.f.503 No.
Plaintiffs aver eight 8 causes of action seeking monetary damages arising out of Defendants’ breach of contractual obligations, Defendants’ violation of securities laws of the United States and Puerto Rico, Defendants’ breach of their duty to negotiate in good faith and their fiduciary duty, and Defendant’s libel and slander against Plaintiffs. On the alternative, Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ Sixth and Seventh d.p.r503 of action for failure to state a claim.
The Court discusses first Defendants’ contention that Plaintiffs have failed to join an indispensable party.