The Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico has upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a contract dispute involving Taboas Tax and Business Advisors, LLC, and several other parties. The ruling, issued on August 31, 2026, affects the ongoing legal battle surrounding allegations of breach of contract and tortious interference. This decision is significant as it clarifies the standards for pleading tortious interference in contract cases in Puerto Rico.

The case, docket number TA2026AP00668, originated from a complaint filed by Ryan Singer, Aleksandra Singer, and Longevity San Juan Corp. against Taboas Tax and Business Advisors. The plaintiffs claimed that Taboas failed to fulfill its contractual obligations to provide tax advisory services, leading them to terminate the contract and seek reimbursement for uncompleted services. The dispute escalated when Taboas filed a third-party complaint against other legal professionals, alleging they conspired to interfere with its contract with the plaintiffs.

The parties involved in this case include Taboas Tax and Business Advisors, LLC, which provided tax advisory services, and the plaintiffs, Ryan Singer, Aleksandra Singer, and Longevity San Juan Corp., who claimed that Taboas did not meet its contractual obligations. Taboas then brought in other parties, including Michael Zierenberg García and Mónica L. García Lorenzo, alleging they acted inappropriately to divert the plaintiffs' business away from Taboas. The case reached the Court of Appeals after the lower court dismissed Taboas's third-party complaint.

The Court of Appeals reviewed the lower court's decision, which dismissed Taboas's claims against the third-party defendants, including José M. Prieto Carballo and Lizamarie Serrano Rodríguez. The court ruled that Taboas's allegations did not meet the necessary legal standards for tortious interference. The opinion stated, "the DEMANDA CONTRA TERCERO does not fulfill the plausibility standard against the Terceros Codemandados." The judges on the panel included Lebrón Nieves, Pagán Ocasio, Álvarez Esnard, and Cruz Hiraldo.

The court confirmed that the lower court correctly assessed the allegations made by Taboas. It emphasized that, even if all allegations were taken as true, they did not establish a plausible claim against the third-party defendants. The court noted that the claims were based on general assertions rather than specific facts that would demonstrate tortious interference with the contract between Taboas and the plaintiffs.

This ruling has important implications for future contract disputes in Puerto Rico, particularly regarding the standards for pleading tortious interference. By affirming the dismissal, the court underscored the necessity for plaintiffs to provide detailed and specific allegations when claiming tortious interference. This decision may deter parties from making broad, unsupported claims in similar cases, thereby promoting more rigorous legal standards.

Going forward, this ruling may influence how parties approach contract disputes and the level of detail required in their claims. It highlights the importance of establishing a clear connection between the alleged interference and the damages claimed. The decision may also serve as a precedent for future cases involving claims of tortious interference in Puerto Rico.

As for what’s next, Taboas Tax and Business Advisors has the option to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico. However, details regarding any potential appeal or related pending cases were not available in the court filing.