VACA MENDOZA v. PR ACQUISITIONS LLC et al

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
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
IN RE:
SIRIA NELLY VACA MENDOZA 	CASE NO. 10-07244 BKT
CHAPTER 7
Debtor(s) 	ADVERSARY NO. 12-0035
SIRIA NELLY VACA MENDOZA
Plaintiff
PR ACQUISITIONS LLC 	FILED & ENTERED ON 05/25/2012
Defendant(s)
OPINION AND ORDER
This 	proceeding 	is 	before 	the 	court 	upon 	Plaintiff’s 	motion
requesting Partial Summary Judgment and Statement of Uncontested Facts
[Dkt. No. 11], Defendant’s Answer to Statement of Uncontested Facts [Dkt.
No. 16] and the Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Dkt.
No. 	17]. 	For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	below, 	the 	Plaintiff’s 	Motion
Requesting Summary Judgment is denied.
Procedural Background:
Debtor/Plaintiff, 	Siria 	Nelly 	Vaca 	Mendoza, 	had 	a 	previous
bankruptcy 	case 	numbered 	10-07244 	that 	concluded 	with 	a 	discharge 	in
November 2010. 	Plaintiff now appears before us with the allegation of a
collection attempt made by Defendant, PR Acquisition, LLC, thru Leonard &
Associates, PSC, on a debt that was allegedly discharged in the previous
bankruptcy case referenced.
Standard of Review:
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(c), made applicable in
bankruptcy by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7056, summary judgment
is available if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories,
Case:12-00035-BKT Doc#:25 Filed:05/25/12 Entered:05/25/12 17:35:05 Desc: Main
Document Page 1 of 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
and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c);
Borges ex rel. S.M.B.W. v. Serrano-Isern, 605 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2010).
As to issues on which the movant, at trial, would be compelled to carry
the 	burden 	of 	proof, 	it 	must 	identify 	those 	portions 	of 	the 	pleadings
which it believes demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material
fact. 	In re Edgardo Ryan Rijos & Julia E. Cruz Nieves v. Banco Bilbao
Vizcaya 	& 	Citibank 	(In 	re 	Rijos), 	263 	B.R. 	382, 	388 	(B.A.P. 	1st 	Cir.
2001). 	A fact is deemed "material" if it potentially could affect the
outcome 	of 	the 	suit. 	Borges 	at 	5. 	Moreover, 	there 	will 	only 	be 	a
"genuine" or "trial worthy" issue as to such a "material fact," "if a
reasonable fact-finder, examining the evidence and drawing all reasonable
inferences helpful to the party resisting summary judgment, could resolve
the dispute in that party's favor." 	Id. at 4. 	The Court must view the
evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. 	Alt. Sys.
Concepts, 	Inc. 	v. 	Synopsys, 	Inc., 	374 	F.3d 	23, 	26 	(1st 	Cir. 	2004).
Therefore, summary judgment is “inappropriate if inferences are necessary
for the judgment and those inferences are not mandated by the record.”
Rijos at 388.
Discussion:
The Plaintiff has the burden to prove the prima facie elements of
her case, and that there are no contested material 	facts that prevent
the 	court 	from 	entering 	judgment 	in 	her 	favor. 	In 	this 	case 	those
elements are, at a minimum, 	that there is no dispute as to the facts
that the collection attempt is from the same creditor against the same
Case:12-00035-BKT Doc#:25 Filed:05/25/12 Entered:05/25/12 17:35:05 Desc: Main
Document Page 2 of 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
debtor, for the same amount of money and regarding the same bank account.
The 	only 	document 	presented 	by 	the 	Plaintiff 	with 	her 	request 	for
summary judgment is a letter allegedly received by the Plaintiff (Dkt.
No. 	11, 	Exhibit 	1 	of 	Plaintiffs’ 	Motion 	Requesting 	Partial 	Summary
Judgment). 	This 	document 	by 	itself 	does 	not 	satisfy 	the 	elements
necessary to decide a motion for summary judgment, namely that there are
no 	contested 	material 	facts. 	Actually, 	there 	remain 	several 	disputed
material facts that would mandate a trial, such as whether the debt that
is being collected by Defendant is the same that was discharged; whether
this claim was discharged; was Defendant properly listed and notified in
the previous case that received a discharge; the amount being collected
is the same amount that was discharged; the debtor is the same for the
discharge and the collection letter; and the collection letter that the
Plaintiff present was in fact sent by Leonard & Associate, PSC by request
and on behalf of PR Acquisitions, LLC.
WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion requesting summary
judgment shall be, and it hereby is, DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 25 day of May, 2012.
Brian K. Tester
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Case:12-00035-BKT Doc#:25 Filed:05/25/12 Entered:05/25/12 17:35:05 Desc: Main
Document Page 3 of 3