Abraham Palacios et al vs Alejandro Quintana et al

Case Background

On August 27, 2021, Plaintiff Abraham Palacios, an individual (“Plaintiff” or “Palacios”) filed a business torts lawsuit against Defendants Alejandro Quintana a/k/a Jose Quintana, a/k/a Jose Alejandro Quintana, a/k/a Jose Alejandro Quintana Diaz, an individual (“Defendant” or “Quintana”), and Holdings of Christopher, LLC.

The lawsuit was filed in the Florida State, Miami-Dade County, Eleventh Circuit Court. Judge Barbara Areces presided over this lawsuit. [Case number: 2021-020017-CA-01]

Cause

Oral Partnership Agreement and Terms

In October 2020, Quintana approached Palacios about forming a business focused on steel transformation and fabrication of bolted metal structures. They agreed to an oral partnership, sharing profits and losses equally. Palacios brought over a decade of experience in metal mechanics, while Quintana claimed to be a financially savvy entrepreneur who could provide the necessary funding.

To support their venture, they established two companies: Steel Building Assemble, LLC, and Q&P Steel Corporation. Both were registered in Florida, listing Palacios and Quintana as officers or managers. Q&P Steel Corporation, formed on January 22, 2021, listed Quintana as president and Palacios as vice president. The company was administratively dissolved on September 23, 2022, without Palacios’ knowledge or authorization. Similarly, Steel Building Assemble, LLC, formed on March 8, 2021, also dissolved on the same date without Palacios’ consent.

Palacios’ Time, Energy, and Effort for the Partnership

Quintana agreed to provide initial capital for purchasing land and buildings for the partnership. However, he admitted that he lacked liquid funds but owned two warehouses in Miami-Dade County. These properties contained enough equity to fund the venture. Palacios took the lead in securing capital by financing or selling the warehouses.

Palacios contacted a realtor, negotiated terms, and met with potential buyers. In January 2021, the warehouses sold due to his efforts to secure the needed funds. With capital in place, Palacios searched for manufacturing and assembly sites, ultimately purchasing two lots in Lake Hamilton, Florida, in early 2021. The lots, located on US Highway 17 and Kokomo Road, were titled under Quintana’s affiliated businesses, including Holdings of Christopher, LLC. Despite the title arrangements, both partners understood that the properties were joint assets.

To expand operations, Palacios researched and facilitated the purchase of two additional lots in an industrial area of St. Cloud, Florida. These properties, like the Lake Hamilton lots, were titled under Holdings of Christopher, LLC for tax benefits but were intended for the partnership.

The business required specialized steel transformation and welding machinery. Palacios contributed approximately 50% of the necessary equipment, valued at $350,000. Quintana agreed to store this equipment at the industrial warehouse on the Lake Hamilton lots. Additional machinery, purchased with Quintana’s funds, was acquired at auctions through Palacios or his then-spouse. Palacios’ industry experience and connections helped secure discounted machinery.

Both partners retained a Miami law firm in February 2021 for legal representation in business matters. Emails show that they jointly requested subcontractor quotes for mechanical services. Palacios also traveled to different locations to acquire heavy machinery for the business.

Quintana Cuts Palacios Out of the Partnership

Between October 2020 and June 2021, Palacios dedicated significant time, energy, and expertise to the partnership. However, on June 10, 2021, he received a letter from the law firm representing both parties. The letter stated that Quintana no longer wished to continue their business relationship.

Despite demands for Palacios to retrieve his machinery and vehicles from the Lake Hamilton warehouse, Quintana and Holdings of Christopher, LLC refused him access. They also failed to recognize the partnership and withheld Palacios’ $350,000 worth of equipment.

On June 2, 2021—eight days before Palacios received the letter—Quintana removed himself as an officer of Holdings of Christopher, LLC. This move attempted to conceal partnership assets and make it appear as though the properties belonged solely to Holdings of Christopher, LLC.

Quintana fraudulently induced Palacios to invest time, labor, and resources under the pretense of a partnership. Ultimately, he cut Palacios out and took control of the business. After nearly eight months of work, Palacios found himself frozen out as tensions escalated between them.

Damages

The Plaintiff requested a judgment against the Defendants for equitable relief and damages. The Plaintiff also sought compensation for the breach of oral contact and time and fees spent due to the Defendants’ conversion. Additionally, the Plaintiff asked for pre-judgment interest, court costs, and any other relief the court considered fair and appropriate.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Abraham Palacios
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Alan R. Soven | Aileen M Carpenter
  • Defendant(s):  Alejandro Quintana | Holdings of Christopher, LLC | Q&P Steel Corp. | Steel Building Assemble, LLC | Quintana Records, Corp.
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Jay M Levy

Claims

Breach of Oral Contract
In October 2020, Abraham Palacios and Alejandro Quintana formed an oral partnership to develop two steel companies. Palacios contributed his expertise in steel manufacturing, while Quintana agreed to split profits and losses. Palacios helped establish and manage Steel Building Assemble, LLC and Q&P Steel Corporation. He also negotiated the purchase of four commercial properties, provided $350,000 worth of industrial equipment, and acquired additional machinery at discounted rates. However, Quintana committed a breach of oral contract and failed to share costs and profits, abandoned the partnership, and blocked Palacios from participating. As a result, Palacios suffered financial losses.

Fraudulent Inducement
Quintana falsely assured Palacios that he would share in the partnership’s profits and losses. He also misrepresented that the four properties Palacios helped secure would be used solely for the business. Relying on these assurances, Palacios stored $350,000 worth of industrial equipment at the Lake Hamilton warehouse. However, Quintana never intended to honor these commitments. Instead, he used Palacios’s efforts and resources for personal gain, particularly to benefit his family business, Holdings of Christopher, LLC. Quintana dissolved the partnership’s companies, blocked Palacios from retrieving his property, and never compensated him for his contributions. Palacios suffered financial harm due to these misrepresentations.

Unjust Enrichment
Palacios provided substantial benefits to Quintana, including securing commercial properties, supplying equipment, and leveraging his industry expertise. He reasonably relied on Quintana’s promises of compensation and profit-sharing. Quintana accepted these benefits but failed to compensate Palacios. Instead, he used Palacios’s efforts and resources to advance his personal and family business interests.

Conversion
Quintana and Holdings of Christopher, LLC wrongfully withheld Palacios’s industrial equipment stored at the Lake Hamilton warehouse. Despite Palacios’s repeated requests, they refused to return it. They converted the equipment, valued at $350,000, for their use without compensating Palacios. Their actions were intentional and financially damaging to Palacios.

Defense

On May 5, 2023, Quintana filed a counter complaint alleging that Plaintiff owed him $111,000 that is due with interest since April 10, 2021.

Jury Verdict

The jury returned the following verdict on February 5, 2025. In the claim for breach of oral contract, the jury found that Plaintiff Abraham Palacios and Defendant Alejandro Quintana had entered into an oral agreement and that Defendant Quintana breached the agreement. However, the jury determined that the partnership agreement was not for a period exceeding one year and that Palacios was not required to contribute start-up capital. The jury awarded Palacios $100,000 in damages.

On the fraudulent inducement claim, the jury found that Palacios was not fraudulently induced by Quintana to enter the agreement, and no damages were awarded. Regarding unjust enrichment, the jury found that Quintana was not unjustly enriched by Palacios, and no damages were awarded. In the conversion claim, the jury awarded Palacios $200,000 in damages.

On Defendant Quintana’s counterclaim, the jury found that Palacios had not repaid a loan of $70,000 from Quintana.

Court Documents:

Documents are available for purchase upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com