Miami Jury Sides with Defendants in Barbershop Ownership Dispute
Table of Contents
Background of the Business
Arturo Alonso Pullu, a long-time resident of Miami, owned and operated Paco’s Barber Shop for over 15 years. The shop, located at 305 SW 12 Avenue, generated revenue primarily through weekly booth rentals paid by licensed barbers. Throughout this period, Arturo relied on Boris E. Abreu to help manage the shop’s daily operations. Despite this involvement, Boris never held any formal title or position within the company. Arturo also worked closely with Jose Rodriguez, a business services provider who assisted with corporate filings, taxes, and other administrative tasks.
Events Leading to the Dispute
In January 2018, Arturo began serving a federal prison sentence that lasted until March 2021. Prior to his incarceration, Arturo entrusted Boris to temporarily manage the business in his absence. However, during this period, and without Arturo’s consent or knowledge, Boris conspired with Rodriguez to seize control of the business. Together, they removed Arturo’s name from the company’s records and changed the corporate name from Paco’s Barber Shop to Boris Kingdom Barber Shop. Boris signed a new lease for the property in his own name and listed himself as president of the company, all without any legitimate transfer of ownership or compensation to Arturo.
Discovery and Betrayal
When Arturo was released from prison in March 2021, he discovered that the business he had built was no longer under his control. He was completely removed from all corporate documents and no longer held any legal or operational authority over the shop. Despite Arturo’s repeated demands for the return of his business, Boris refused to relinquish control. The actions of both Boris and Rodriguez represented a complete betrayal of the trust Arturo had placed in them.
Damages and Consequences
As a result of this unauthorized takeover, Arturo suffered significant financial losses. He lost access to the shop’s income, his rights to the leasehold property, and the ability to operate the business he had developed over many years. The situation also caused emotional and reputational harm, as well as a deep personal and professional betrayal.
Legal Action and Relief Sought
Arturo has initiated legal action to recover what he lost. He seeks to regain full control and ownership of the business, obtain compensation for lost income and damages, and recover the leasehold interest. Additionally, he is requesting reimbursement for legal expenses and has demanded a jury trial to resolve the matter and hold the responsible parties accountable.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Arturo Alonso Pullu
Counsel for Plaintiff: Jorge A. Calil
Defendants: Boris Kingdom Barber Shop Corp. (aka Paco’s Barber Shop Corp.) | Boris E Abreu | Jose Rodriguez | El Shopping LLC
Counsel for Defendants: Eduardo A. Maura | Leticia Dieppa
Claims
Count 1 – Conversion
Boris Abreu and Jose Rodriguez unlawfully took control of Paco’s Barber Shop, a business Arturo Pullu owned and operated for 15 years. Without Arturo’s consent or compensation, they changed the business name to Boris Kingdom Barber Shop and assumed full control. Despite repeated demands, they refused to return the business. By using the company and its revenue for personal gain, they wrongfully deprived Arturo of his ownership, profits, and operational control.
Count 2 – Constructive Fraud
While Arturo served a federal sentence, Boris agreed to manage Paco’s Barber Shop, entering into a fiduciary relationship. Instead of safeguarding the business, Boris conspired with Rodriguez to remove Arturo from the corporation and seize control. Boris used Arturo’s absence and his position of trust to act deceitfully. Arturo relied on Boris’s promises, only to suffer betrayal, financial loss, and the unlawful stripping of his corporate rights.
Count 3 – Ejectment
During Arturo’s incarceration, Boris signed a new lease for the barbershop in his own name under the new entity, Boris Kingdom Barber Shop. Arturo never authorized this lease or transferred any ownership interest. He remains the rightful owner of the business and leasehold. Arturo now seeks a court order ejecting Boris from the premises at 308 SW 12 Avenue and restoring Arturo’s possession, along with related damages.
Legal Costs
Defendants acted without proper authority and forced Arturo into litigation to reclaim his rights. As a result, Arturo seeks compensation for attorney’s fees and court costs incurred due to the defendants’ unauthorized actions and refusal to return control of the business.
Defenses
The Defendants, Boris E. Abreu and Boris Kingdom Barber Shop Corp., argued that Arturo Pullu had sold the business for $8,500 under a notarized agreement dated January 20, 2024. They claimed this transaction transferred full ownership, leaving Pullu with no legal standing to sue.
They further asserted that Pullu had represented or promised that the business belonged to Abreu, who relied on this by managing operations, paying rent, and covering corporate fees since 2017. On that basis, they raised the defense of promissory estoppel, regardless of the agreement’s enforceability.
In response to the ejectment claim, the Defendants argued that the complaint failed to meet the statutory requirements under Florida Statute § 66.021, as it lacked a chronological chain of title, supporting documentation, and a legal basis for possession.
Additionally, they asserted the defense of laches, claiming Pullu unreasonably delayed filing suit, causing prejudice through accrued rent, late fees, and legal expenses.
Defendant Jose Rodriguez denied any involvement in the alleged sale, management, or lease of the barbershop. He argued that the claims of conversion, constructive fraud, ejectment, and civil theft were inapplicable to him, as he neither possessed nor controlled the property and bore no legal responsibility for its return.
Jury Verdict
On February 20, 2025, the jury returned a verdict in favor of all Defendants, Boris E. Abreu, Boris Kingdom Barber Shop Corp., and Jose Rodriguez. The jury rejected Arturo Pullu’s claims of conversion, constructive fraud, ejectment, and civil theft.
The verdict reflected the jury’s acceptance of the Defendants’ position that Pullu had sold the business via a notarized agreement and no longer held ownership rights. Accordingly, the Court entered final judgment for the Defendants, finding no wrongful conduct or liability.
Court Documents