Damages Lawsuit by Administradora de Restaurantes

The plaintiff sought damages allegedly linked to Lisa’s exclusion. The defendant argued that the exclusion was not final, that the claim was premature, and that Lisa had in fact been harmed by the unlawful withholding of its dividends. Multiple peremptory defenses, one mixed defense, and a counterclaim for abuse of rights were raised.

The court rejected Administradora de Restaurantes’ claim, upheld the defense of lack of indispensable procedural requirements, and dismissed Lisa’s counterclaim solely on procedural timing grounds.

The damages claim was rejected, protecting Lisa from an abusive lawsuit. The counterclaim was dismissed without affecting the merits. Costs were imposed on the losing party.

Administradora de Restaurantes appealed, arguing it could immediately seek damages despite the ongoing judicial challenge to Lisa’s exclusion. Lisa requested affirmance due to the lack of legal basis for the claim.

The appellate court affirmed the 2022 judgment and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that damages cannot be claimed while Lisa’s exclusion is not final.

The appeal failed, confirming Lisa’s defense. The plaintiff obtained no compensation and was ordered to pay costs. The case file was returned to the trial court with certification.

Administradora de Restaurantes filed a cassation appeal alleging violation of law by non-application of Articles 1513 and 1673 of the Civil Code, claiming a risk of prescription. Lisa argued that the exclusion was not final and that the appeal failed to meet the strict technical requirements of cassation.

The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, holding that the appellant failed to meet formal requirements by alleging only non-application of legal provisions without identifying any incorrect application or justifying a recognized doctrinal exception. Costs were imposed and a fine ordered.

The plaintiff’s final attempt failed. The cassation appeal was dismissed on technical grounds, definitively consolidating Lisa’s position. Costs and a statutory fine were imposed on the appellant.