Damages Lawsuit by Administradora de Restaurantes

Administradora de Restaurantes demanded damages tied to Lisa’s exclusion. Lisa argued that the exclusion was not final, the claim was premature, and that Lisa had in fact been the injured party since dividends had been withheld from it for years. Lisa raised peremptory defenses, a mixed defense, and filed a counterclaim alleging abuse of rights.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s arguments, confirming Lisa’s key defense that indispensable procedural prerequisites were missing. Without a final decision on the legality of Lisa’s exclusion, damages could not be claimed. The plaintiff’s case was rejected in full. Lisa’s counterclaim was also denied, but not because of lack of merit — the court considered it procedurally unripe.

Administradora de Restaurantes’ claim collapsed, leaving Lisa protected from the damages demand. Neither side obtained damages, but Lisa’s opposition succeeded in stopping an abusive claim. Costs were imposed against the losing party.

Administradora de Restaurantes appealed, insisting that damages could be claimed immediately despite Lisa’s pending opposition to exclusion. Lisa argued the judgment was correct and should be confirmed.

The appellate court agreed with Lisa, holding that damages could not be claimed while the exclusion was still under judicial challenge. The appeal was declared unfounded, and the 2022 judgment was confirmed entirely.

Administradora de Restaurantes lost the appeal. Lisa’s defense was validated once again, leaving the plaintiff with no damages award and costs imposed against it. The case returned to the lower court for filing.