Page 1 of 29

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

In re:

EXCLUSIVE DOORS AND 

WINDOWS, LLC, 

 Debtor.

__________________________/

Case No. 19-11829-AJC

Chapter 7

 

 Adv. Case No. ________

MARCIA T. DUNN, Chapter 7 Trustee of the 

Bankruptcy Estate of EXCLUSIVE DOORS

AND WINDOWS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

LUIS CARLOS PIMENTEL, an individual;

EXCLUSIVE ACCORDIONS LLC, a dissolved 

Florida limited liability company; MIAMI DADE 

ACCORDIONS LLC, a dissolved Florida limited 

liability company; and ALL STAR SHUTTER LLC, a 

Florida limited liability company,

Defendants.

___________________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, MARCIA T. DUNN, in her capacity as the duly appointed Chapter 7 Trustee of 

the above-captioned main bankruptcy case (the “Plaintiff” or “Trustee”) filed by EXCLUSIVE 

DOORS AND WINDOWS, LLC (the “Debtor”), by and through undersigned counsel, sues

Defendants, LUIS CARLOS PIMENTEL, an individual (“Pimentel”); EXCLUSIVE 

ACCORDIONS LLC, a dissolved Florida limited liability company (“Exclusive Accordions”); 

MIAMI DADE ACCORDIONS LLC, a dissolved Florida limited liability company (“Miami Dade 

Accordions”); and ALL STAR SHUTTER LLC, a Florida limited liability company (“All Star 

Shutter”) (collectively, the “Defendants”), and alleges:

Case 20-01360-AJC Doc 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 1 of 29
Page 2 of 29

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an adversary proceeding brought by the Trustee against Defendants for: (1) 

declaratory judgment; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) fraud; (4) negligence (5) to avoid and 

recover fraudulent transfers pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 548 and 550, and Fla. Stat. §§ 726.105 

and/or 726.106, and 726.108(1)(a), and 26 U.S.C. § 6502(a); (6) unjust enrichment; (7) the 

imposition of a constructive trust; (8) turnover; and (9) for other relief under applicable nonbankruptcy federal and state law.

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(a)-(b) and 

1334(b) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7001.

3. Venue is proper herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409(d), as a substantial 

part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims asserted herein occurred in the Southern 

District of Florida.

4. This is a core proceeding for which this Court is authorized to hear and determine 

all matters and enter final judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), (b)(2)(A), (H) and (O).

PARTIES AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

5. On February 11, 2019 (the “Petition Date”), the Debtor commenced this case by 

filing a voluntary petition under Chapter 7 of the United States Code.

6. Plaintiff, MARCIA T. DUNN is the duly appointed and acting Chapter 7 Trustee 

of the Debtor’s bankruptcy estate in the Main Case (the “Estate”).

7. LUIS PIMENTEL (“Pimentel”) is an individual residing and transacting business

in Miami-Dade County Florida, is subject to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court, and is 

otherwise sui juris. 

Case 20-01360-AJC Doc 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 2 of 29
Page 3 of 29

8. At all relevant times, Pimentel served as the manager, sole member, and owner of

the Debtor. 

9. Pimentel testified at the Debtor’s Section 341 Meeting of Creditors.

10. EXCLUSIVE ACCORDIONS LLC is a dissolved Florida limited liability 

company transacting business in the State of Florida with its principal place of business in MiamiDade County, Florida.

11. MIAMI DADE ACCORDIONS LLC is a dissolved Florida limited liability 

company transacting business in the State of Florida with its principal place of business in MiamiDade County, Florida.

12. ALL STAR SHUTTER LLC is a Florida limited liability company transacting 

business in the State of Florida with its principal place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Pimentel’s Operation of the Debtor and Related Alter Ego Entities

a. The Debtor

13. The Debtor was formed and incorporated in Florida on or around August 10, 2016

by Pimentel. The Debtor was primarily in the business of installing hurricane shutters and 

hurricane impact doors. 

14. While the Debtor did maintain some legitimate operations, Pimentel willfully 

orchestrated and executed an array of egregious “business practices” that resulted in defrauding 

customers, exposing the Debtor to litigation, regulatory issues, and other claims, deepening the 

Debtor’s insolvency, all while Pimentel enjoyed his ill-gotten gains from the Debtor’s coffers.

15. Pimentel acted negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally in his capacity 

operating the Debtor.

Case 20-01360-AJC Doc 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 3 of 29
Page 4 of 29

16. During all applicable times, the Debtor was insolvent or operated in the zone of 

insolvency, which calls for not only heightened fiduciary duties, but also in consideration of the 

Debtor’s creditors. 

17. Pimentel’s actions or inactions, as the case may be, proximately caused in excess 

of one million dollars in damages to the Debtor and its creditors.

18. Among other things, Pimentel, while serving as the manager, sole member, and 

owner of the Debtor, dissipated hundreds of thousands of dollars to or for his own benefit, 

including payments for his own personal expenses and lifestyle.

19. Pimentel, through the Debtor, misappropriated funds, in part, by improperly 

retaining deposits received from customers for the installation of doors and/or windows while 

never performing or completing the services contracted for nor delivering the goods contracted for 

in exchange for the deposits. Numerous instances of the improper retention of such deposits are 

disclosed on the Debtor’s Schedule “E/F”.

20. In order to facilitate the improper retention of customer deposits, Pimentel, through 

the Debtor, made intentional misrepresentations of material fact, upon which he intended the 

customers to rely. The customers relied upon Pimentel’s misrepresentations to their detriment, as 

evidenced by the misappropriated deposits paid to the Debtor.

21. As a result, there now exist numerous claims against the Estate in the Main Case 

that evidence tens of thousands of dollars paid to the Debtor in deposits for work that was not 

performed. 

22. Such claims brought against the Estate represent damages incurred as a result of 

Pimentel’s improper retention of deposits, repeated failures to render service to clients, and related

deficient, negligent, reckless, and/or intentionally deficient services.

Case 20-01360-AJC Doc 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 4 of 29
Page 5 of 29

b. Exclusive Accordions

23. As evidenced by numerous underlying contracts which accompany the claims filed 

against the Estate, the Debtor also did business as Exclusive Accordions. 

24. According to filings with the Florida Division of Corporations, Exclusive 

Accordions was incorporated with Pimentel as the sole manager and registered agent, with no other 

listed officers or directors. 

25. Exclusive Accordions is further listed as doing business at the identical location as 

the Debtor, and, upon information and belief, performed identical services to that of the Debtor.

Upon information and belief, Exclusive Accordions was managed and controlled by Pimentel as 

an alter ego of the Debtor.

26. Exclusive Accordions holds a contractor license, which is presently restricted as a 

result of multiple complaints filed with Miami-Dade County, Florida for the business’ failure to 

fulfill contractual obligations. 

27. Further, the Trustee is aware of the expiration of permits for multiple projects of 

the Debtor and Exclusive Accordions due to failure to obtain necessary approvals for all required 

inspections, which expose the business to the imposition of potential fines.

28. Further, upon information and belief, Exclusive Accordions shared the same 

personnel, shared the same assets, operated out of the identical physical location, and operated in 

the same line of business as the Debtor. 

29. Upon information and belief, Exclusive Accordions had substantially the same 

customers and vendors as the Debtor.

30. Upon information and belief, at all material times, Pimentel operated Exclusive 

Accordions an alter ego of the Debtor.

Case 20-01360-AJC Doc 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 5 of 29
Page 6 of 29

31. Upon information and belief, Exclusive Accordions failed to follow required 

corporate formalities with respect its business operations and those of the Debtor.

32. Pimentel dominated and controlled Exclusive Accordions to such an extent that the 

entity’s independent existence from the Debtor was non-existent.

33. Upon information and belief, Pimentel misused and misappropriated funds of 

Exclusive Accordions to his personal benefit and for the payment of his personal expenses in the 

same manner as he did funds of the Debtor.

c. Miami Dade Accordions

34. Upon information and belief, and according to records filed with the Florida 

Secretary of State, Pimentel also served as the manager of Miami Dade Accordions.

35. Further, upon information and belief, Miami Dade Accordions shared the same 

personnel, shared the same assets, and operated in the same line of business as the Debtor. 

36. Upon information and belief, Miami Dade Accordions had substantially the same 

customers and vendors as the Debtor.

37. Upon information and belief, at all material times, Pimentel operated Miami Dade

Accordions as an alter ego of the Debtor.

38. Upon information and belief, Miami Dade Accordions failed to follow required 

corporate formalities with respect its business operations and those of the Debtor.

39. Pimentel dominated and controlled Miami Dade Accordions to such an extent that 

the entity’s independent existence from the Debtor was non-existent.

40. Upon information and belief, Pimentel misused and misappropriated funds of 

Miami Dade Accordions to his personal benefit and for the payment of his personal expenses in 

the same manner as he did funds of the Debtor.

Case 20-01360-AJC Doc 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 6 of 29
Page 7 of 29

d. All Star Shutter

41. Upon information and belief, Pimentel is also involved in the operation and 

management of All Star Shutter.

42. Further, upon information and belief, All Star Shutter shared the same personnel, 

shared the same assets, and operated in the same line of business as the Debtor. 

43. Upon information and belief, All Star Shutter had substantially the same customers 

and vendors as the Debtor.

44. Upon information and belief, at all material times, Pimentel operated All Star 

Shutter as an alter ego of the Debtor.

45. Upon information and belief, All Star Shutter failed to follow required corporate 

formalities with respect its business operations and those of the Debtor.

46. Pimentel dominated and controlled All Star Shutter to such an extent that the 

entity’s independent existence from the Debtor was non-existent.

47. Upon information and belief, Pimentel misused and misappropriated funds of All 

Star Shutter to his personal benefit and for the payment of his personal expenses in the same 

manner as he did funds of the Debtor.

B. The Fraudulent Transfers

48. Specifically with respect to payments for Pimentel’s own personal expenses and 

lifestyle, prior to the Petition Date, on or about July 2017 through December 2018, the Debtor 

made transfers to or for the benefit of Pimentel in the net total amount of $335,234.00, as detailed 

on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, which the Trustee incorporates herein by reference, and contains: 

(i) a list of payments received by Pimentel from the Debtor or made on behalf of Pimentel from 

the Debtor during the applicable time frame; (ii) the date of each payment; (iii) the amount of each 

Case 20-01360-AJC Doc 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 7 of 29
Page 8 of 29

payment; (iv) the bank account from which each payment was made; and (v) the payee name for 

each payment made on behalf of Pimentel from the Debtor (collectively, the “Fraudulent

Transfers”).

49. Each of the Fraudulent Transfers were made to or for the benefit of Pimentel. 

50. Each of the Fraudulent Transfers were of funds belonging to the Debtor and each 

of the Fraudulent Transfers was made from accounts that were property of the Debtor.

51. The Fraudulent Transfers did not relate to the Debtor’s business operations.

52. The Fraudulent Transfers did not confer any benefit upon, nor provide any value to 

the Debtor or its creditors.

53. The Debtor’s records do not indicate that the Fraudulent Transfers had a connection 

with or were related to the business of the Debtor.

54. The Debtor’s records do not indicate that Pimentel provided the Debtor with 

reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the Fraudulent Transfers.

55. Upon information and belief, the Fraudulent Transfers were made for the personal 

expenses of Pimentel or for the benefit of other third parties.

56. The Debtor’s records do not indicate that the Debtor was indebted to Pimentel.

57. As of the time of the Fraudulent Transfers, the Debtor had at least one actual 

unsecured creditor, including but not limited to the State of Florida Department of Revenue, and 

other creditors holding unsecured claims which are allowable within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 

544(b)(1), by whom the Fraudulent Transfers were avoidable under applicable law, including 11 

U.S.C. § 548. [see e.g. Claim 15-1, Main Case]. 

58. The Debtor was insolvent at the time the Fraudulent Transfers were made.

Case 20-01360-AJC Doc 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 8 of 29
Page 9 of 29

59. At the time of the Fraudulent Transfers, the Debtor was not generally paying its 

debts as they came due; had obligations and faced claims beyond the Debtor’s ability to pay; and 

otherwise had liabilities which exceeded the true value of its assets.

60. Any conditions precedent to bringing this action have been performed, have 

occurred, have been waived, or have otherwise been excused.

C. The Debtor’s Further Misappropriation of Funds to Pay for his Home and Car

61. On or about June 1, 2018, Pimentel purchased a home located at 3270 SW 153rd

Court, Miami, Florida 33185 (the “153rd Court Property”), for the purchase price of $265,000.00. 

62. Closing documents executed in connection with the purchase of the 153rd Court 

Property evidence that Pimentel paid a deposit of $4,186.88 to the closing agent by causing the 

funds to be wired directly from a bank account held by the Debtor. 

63. Further, closing documents executed in connection with the purchase of the 153rd

Court Property evidence that Pimentel obtained a loan in the amount of $260,200.00 from 

Paramount Residential Mortgage Group, Inc. (the “Mortgage”), the proceeds of which were used 

toward the purchase of the 153rd Court Property..

64. The Trustee’s investigation revealed that Pimentel made the first six Mortgage 

payments in the monthly amount of $1,908.38 from July 2018 to December 2018 by causing the 

funds to be paid directly from a bank account held by the Debtor.

65. Thereafter, beginning in January 2019, and for each payment thereafter, Pimentel 

began making Mortgage payments for the 153rd Court Property through his personal bank account. 

66. Upon information and belief, the funds in Pimentel’s personal bank account that 

were used to make the Mortgage payments beginning in January 2019, and for each payment 

Case 20-01360-AJC Doc 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 9 of 29
Page 10 of 29

thereafter, were funds which represent fraudulent transfers to Pimentel from the Debtor and/or one 

of the Debtor’s alter ego entities.

67. Upon information and belief, the funds improperly used by Pimentel to make 

ongoing payments toward the Mortgage on the 153rd Court Property are funds traceable to either 

the Debtor and/or one of the Debtor’s alter ego entities. 

68. Upon information and belief, Mr. Pimentel presently drives a Tesla automobile. 

69. Upon information and belief, Mr. Pimentel’s Tesla is financed through BMO Harris 

Bank (the “Tesla Loan”).

70. Based upon the Trustee’s investigation, beginning in September 2018 and 

continuing through November 2018, Pimentel made four separate payments in the amount of 

$900.00 (for a total of $3,600.00) toward the Tesla Loan by causing the funds to be paid directly 

from a bank account held by the Debtor.

71. Thereafter, beginning in January 2019, and for each payment thereafter, Pimentel 

began making payments toward the Tesla Loan through his personal bank account. 

72. Upon information and belief, the funds in Pimentel’s bank account that were used 

to make the Tesla Loan payments beginning in January 2019, and for each payment thereafter, 

were funds which represent fraudulent transfers to Pimentel from the Debtor and/or one of the 

Debtor’s alter ego entities.

73. Upon information and belief, the funds improperly used by Pimentel to make 

ongoing payments on the Tesla Loan are funds traceable to either the Debtor and/or one of the 

Debtor’s alter ego entities.

74. Upon information and belief, Pimentel made additional improper payments to 

himself or for his personal expenses from funds that are traceable to the Debtor’s alter ego entities.

Case 20-01360-AJC Doc 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 10 of 29
Page 11 of 29

RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

75. The Trustee is an after-the-fact appointed fiduciary.

76. The Trustee reserves the right to amend, modify, and/or supplement these and other 

allegations contained in this Complaint, and causes of action against Pimentel or person or parties 

affiliated with Pimentel, based on her further investigation.

COUNT I

AVOIDANCE OF FRAUDULENT TRANSFER

11 U.S.C. §§ 544(b)(1) and 548(a)(1)(A), Fla. Stat. §§ 726.105(1)(a) and 726.108

(against Pimentel)

77. The Trustee adopts and realleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 

1 through 76 above as if specifically set forth herein.

78. The Trustee sues Pimentel pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 544(b)(1) and 548(a)(1)(A), 

Fla. Stat. §§ 726.105(1)(a) and 726.108 to avoid the Fraudulent Transfers as an actual fraudulent 

transfer.

79. The Debtor made the Fraudulent Transfers in the amount of $335,234.00 to or for 

the benefit of Pimentel within the four (4) year period prior to the Petition Date.

80. The Fraudulent Transfers were made with the actual intent to hinder, delay, or 

defraud a creditor of the Debtor.

81. As of the time of the Fraudulent Transfers, the Debtor had at least one actual 

creditor, including but not limited to the State of Florida Department of Revenue, holding an 

unsecured claim which is allowable within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1), by whom the 

Fraudulent Transfers were avoidable under applicable law, including 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(A), 

Fla. Stat. §§ 726.105(1)(a) and 726.108.

82. As a result of the above, the Trustee is entitled to avoid the transfers pursuant to 11 

U.S.C. §§ 544(b)(1) and 548(a)(1)(A) and Fla. Stat. §§ 726.105(1)(a) and 726.108(1)(a). 

Case 20-01360-AJC Doc 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 11 of 29
Page 12 of 29

WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully requests the Court enter a judgment in her favor 

against Luis Pimentel: (a) declaring the Fraudulent Transfers to be a fraudulent transfer pursuant 

to 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(A) and/or Fla. Stat. § 726.105(1)(a); (b) avoiding and recovering the 

Fraudulent Transfers as a fraudulent transfer pursuant to §§ 544 and 548(a)(1)(A) and Fla. Stat. §§ 

726.105(1)(a) and 726.108; (c) awarding to the Trustee, for the benefit of the Estate, pre- and postjudgment interest and costs; and (d) granting such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

COUNT II

AVOIDANCE OF FRAUDULENT TRANSFER

11 U.S.C. §§ 544(b)(1) and 548(a)(1)(B) and Fla. Stat. §§ 726.105(1)(b) and 726.108

(against Pimentel)

83. The Trustee adopts and realleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 

1 through 76 above as if specifically set forth herein.

84. The Trustee sues Pimentel pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 544(b)(1) and 548(a)(1)(B) and 

Fla. Stat. §§ 726.105(1)(b) and 726.108 to avoid the Fraudulent Transfers as a constructively 

fraudulent transfer.

85. The Debtor made the Fraudulent Transfers in the amount of $335,234.00 to or for 

the benefit of Pimentel within the four (4) year period prior to the Petition Date.

86. The Debtor received less than reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the 

Fraudulent Transfers, and:

a) Was insolvent on the date that such transfer was made or such obligation was 

incurred, or became insolvent as a result of such transfer or obligation;

a) The Debtor was engaged in business or a transaction, or was about to engage in 

a business or a transaction for which the remaining assets of the Debtor were 

unreasonably small in relation to its business or transaction; or 

Case 20-01360-AJC Doc 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 12 of 29
Page 13 of 29

b) The Debtor intended to incur, or believed it would incur, debts that would be 

beyond its ability to pay as such debts matured. 

87. At the time of the Fraudulent Transfers, the Debtor had at least one actual creditor, 

including but not limited to the State of Florida Department of Revenue, holding an unsecured 

claim which is allowable within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1), by whom the Fraudulent 

Transfers were avoidable under applicable law, including 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B), Fla. Stat. §§ 

726.105(1)(b) and 726.108.

88. As a result of the above, the Trustee is entitled to avoid the transfers pursuant to 11 

U.S.C. §§ 544(b)(1) and 548(a)(1)(B) and Fla. Stat. §§ 726.105(1)(b) and 726.108(1)(a). 

WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully requests the Court enter a judgment in her favor 

against Luis Pimentel: (a) declaring the Fraudulent Transfers to be a fraudulent transfer pursuant 

to 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B) and/or Fla. Stat. § 726.105(1)(b); (b) avoiding and recovering the 

Fraudulent Transfers as a fraudulent transfer pursuant to 11 U.SC. §§ 544 and 548(a)(1)(B) and 

Fla. Stat. §§ 726.105(1)(b) and 726.108; (c) awarding to the Trustee, for the benefit of the Estate, 

pre- and post-judgment interest and costs; and (d) granting such other and further relief as may be 

just and proper.

COUNT III

AVOIDANCE OF FRAUDULENT TRANSFER

11 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1) and Fla. Stat. §§ 726.106(1) and 726.108

(against Pimentel)

89. The Trustee adopts and realleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 

1 through 76 above as if specifically set forth herein.

90. The Trustee sues Pimentel pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1) and Fla. Stat. §§ 

726.106(1) and 726.108(1)(a) to avoid the Fraudulent Transfers as a constructively fraudulent 

transfer.

Case 20-01360-AJC Doc 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 13 of 29
Page 14 of 29

91. The Debtor made the Fraudulent Transfers in the amount of $335,234.00 to or for 

the benefit of Pimentel within the four (4) year period prior to the Petition Date.

92. The Debtor received less than reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the 

Fraudulent Transfers.

93. The Debtor was insolvent at the time of the Fraudulent Transfers or became 

insolvent as a result of the transaction(s).

94. At the time of the Fraudulent Transfers, the Debtor had at least one actual creditor 

holding an unsecured claim, including but not limited to the State of Florida Department of 

Revenue, which is allowable within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1), by whom the Fraudulent 

Transfers were avoidable under applicable law, including Fla. Stat. §§ 726.106(1) and 

726.108(1)(a).

95. As a result of the above, the Trustee is entitled to avoid the transfers pursuant to 11 

U.S.C. §§ 544(b)(1) and Fla. Stat. §§ 726.106(1) and 726.108(1).

WHEREFORE, The Trustee respectfully requests the Court enter a judgment in her favor 

against Luis Pimentel: (a) declaring the Fraudulent Transfers to be a fraudulent transfer pursuant

to Fla. Stat. § 726.106(1); (b) avoiding and recovering the Fraudulent Transfers as a fraudulent 

transfer pursuant to 11 US.C. § 544 and Fla. Stat. §§ 726.106(1) and 726.108(1)(a); (c) awarding 

to the Trustee, for the benefit of the Estate, pre- and post-judgment interest and costs; and (d) 

granting such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

Case 20-01360-AJC Doc 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 14 of 29
Page 15 of 29

COUNT IV

AVOIDANCE OF FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS

11 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1) and Fla. Stat. §§ 726.106(2) and 726.108

(against Pimentel)

96. The Trustee adopts and realleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 

1 through 76 above as if specifically set forth herein.

97. The Trustee sues Pimentel pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1) and Fla. Stat. §§ 

726.106(2) and 726.108(1)(a) to avoid the Fraudulent Transfers as a fraudulent transfer.

98. The Debtor made the Fraudulent Transfers in the amount of $335,234.00 to 

Pimentel within the four (4) year period prior to the Petition date.

99. The Fraudulent Transfers were made to Pimentel who was an insider of the Debtor.

100. The Debtor was insolvent at the time of the Fraudulent Transfers.

101. Pimentel had reasonable cause to believe that the Debtor was insolvent.

102. At the time of the Transfers, the Debtor had at least one actual creditor holding an 

unsecured claim, including but not limited to the State of Florida Department of Revenue, which 

is allowable within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1), by whom the Transfers were avoidable 

under applicable law, including Fla. Stat. §§ 726.106(2) and 726.108(1)(a).

103. As a result of the above, the Trustee is entitled to avoid the transfers pursuant to 11 

U.S.C. §§ 544(b)(1) and Fla. Stat. §§ 726.106(2) and 726.108(1).

104. WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully requests the Court enter a judgment in her 

favor against Pimentel: (a) declaring the Fraudulent Transfers to be a fraudulent transfer pursuant 

to Fla. Stat. § 726.106(2); (b) avoiding and recovering the Fraudulent Transfers as a fraudulent 

transfer pursuant to 11 US.C. § 544 and Fla. Stat. §§ 726.106(2) and 726.108(1)(a); (c) awarding 

to The Trustee, for the benefit of the Estate, pre- and post-judgment interest and costs; and (d) 

granting such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

Case 20-01360-AJC Doc 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 15 of 29
Page 16 of 29

COUNT V

RECOVERY OF TRANSFERS

11 U.S.C. § 550 and Fla. Stat. §§ 726.108 and 726.109

(against Pimentel)

105. The Trustee adopts and realleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 

1 through 76 above as if specifically set forth herein.

106. The Trustee sues Pimentel pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 550 and Fla. Stat. § 

726.108(1)(a) to recover the Fraudulent Transfers.

107. The Fraudulent Transfers are avoidable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 544(b)(1), 

548(a)(1)(A), and 548(a)(1)(B); Fla. Stat. §§ 726.105(1)(a), 726.105(1)(b) and/or 726.106(1) and 

Fla. Stat. § 726.108(1)(a).

108. With respect to the Fraudulent Transfers, Pimentel was either the initial transferee 

or individual for whose benefit the Fraudulent Transfers were made under 11 U.S.C. § 550(a)(1); 

or, alternatively, an immediate or mediate transferee within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 550(a)(2).

109. To the extent that Pimentel was or is found to be an immediate or mediate transferee 

within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 550(a)(2), Pimentel was not a transferee who took for value, in 

good faith, without knowledge of the voidability of the transfer, within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. 

§ 550(b)(1); or an immediate or mediate good faith transferee thereof within the meaning of 11 

U.S.C. § 550(b)(2).

110. The Fraudulent Transfers are, or the value of Fraudulent Transfers is, recoverable 

by the Trustee from Pimentel for the benefit of the Debtor’s Estate, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 550 

and Fla. Stat. §§ 726.108 and 726.109.

WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully requests the Court enter a judgment in her favor 

against Luis Pimentel: (a) declaring Luis Pimentel to be either the initial transferee of the 

Fraudulent Transfers or entity for whose benefit the Fraudulent Transfers were was made under 

Case 20-01360-AJC Doc 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 16 of 29
Page 17 of 29

11 U.S.C. § 550(a)(1); or, alternatively, an immediate or mediate transferee of the Fraudulent 

Transfers within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 550(a)(2); (b) directing Luis Pimentel to turn over to 

the Trustee, for the benefit of the Debtor’s Estate, the Fraudulent Transfers or the value of the 

Fraudulent Transfers, plus interest at the applicable statutory rate, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and 

costs and expenses to the extent permissible by applicable law; (c) awarding the Trustee, for the 

benefit of the Estate, costs under applicable law; and (d) granting such other and further relief as 

may be equitable and just.

COUNT VI

UNJUST ENRICHMENT 

(against Pimentel)

111. The Trustee adopts and realleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 

1 through 76 above as if specifically set forth herein.

112. The Debtor made the Fraudulent Transfers to or for the benefit of Pimentel.

113. The Debtor conferred a benefit on Pimentel by virtue of the Fraudulent Transfers.

114. Pimentel voluntarily accepted and retained the benefit of the Fraudulent Transfers.

115. The circumstances render Pimentel’s retention of the Fraudulent Transfers

inequitable unless Pimentel pays the Debtor the value of the Fraudulent Transfers.

116. Pimentel was unjustly enriched by virtue of the Fraudulent Transfers and the 

Trustee is entitled to the return of the value of the Fraudulent Transfers.

117. Further Pimentel, acting through the Debtor, conferred a benefit upon himself by 

virtue of the misappropriation of deposits.

118. Pimentel voluntarily accepted and retained the benefit of the misappropriated 

deposits.

Case 20-01360-AJC Doc 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 17 of 29
Page 18 of 29

119. The circumstances render Pimentel’s retention of the misappropriated deposits 

inequitable unless Pimentel pays the Debtor for the value of such misappropriated funds.

120. Pimentel was unjustly enriched by virtue of his retention of the misappropriated 

deposits and the Trustee is entitled to the return of the value of such misappropriated funds.

WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully requests the Court enter a judgment in her favor 

against Luis Pimentel: (i) granting money damages to the Trustee against Pimentel, for the benefit 

of the Debtor’s Estate, plus pre- and post-judgment interest at the applicable statutory rate,

reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs and expenses to the extent permissible by applicable law; (ii) 

awarding the Trustee, for the benefit of the Estate, costs under applicable law; and (iii) granting 

such other and further relief as may be equitable and just.

COUNT VII

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

(against Pimentel)

121. The Trustee adopts and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 76 as if fully restated herein.

122. At all times relevant, Pimentel served as the manager, sole member, and owner of 

the Debtor.

123. As a result of the relationship between the Debtor and Pimentel, pursuant to 

applicable Florida state law, and principles of common law and equity, Pimentel owed the Debtor

fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty, and due care.

124. As Pimentel was in a position of trust, including, but not limited to, being a manager 

with duties of accounting regarding any property of the Debtor, the Debtor reasonably relied on 

Pimentel, and Pimentel abused his position of trust to cause the Debtor to engage in the Fraudulent 

Transfers to Pimentel.

Case 20-01360-AJC Doc 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 18 of 29
Page 19 of 29

125. Pimentel breached hisfiduciary duty to the Debtor in bad faith by failing to properly 

manage the Debtor and oversee its business dealings, knowingly, willfully, and recklessly causing 

the Debtor to engage in the Fraudulent Transfers, to improperly retain customer deposits, and 

acting in a manner adverse to the Debtor’s interest to Pimentel’s gain and to the Debtor’s detriment.

126. Pimentel had an obligation to discharge his duties in good faith and with care that 

an ordinary prudent officer in a like position would exercise and in a manner reasonably believed 

to be in the best interests of the Debtor and its creditors, and to consider all material information 

reasonably available in making business decisions.

127. Pimentel’s negligent acts and omissions proximately caused damages to the Debtor 

in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is reasonably foreseeable that had Pimentel acted in a 

non-negligent manner, the Debtor would not have suffered these damages.

128. As a result, the Estate was damaged by a loss in an amount including, but not limited 

to, the amount of the Fraudulent Transfers.

129. Also, as a result, the Estate was damaged in the amount of claims asserted against 

it as they related to improper retention of deposits, failures to render service to clients, failures to 

comply with regulatory requirements, and related deficient, negligent, reckless, and/or 

intentionally deficient services.

WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully requests the Court enter a judgment in her favor 

against Luis Pimentel: (i) granting money damages to the Trustee against Pimentel for the benefit 

of the Debtor’s Estate, plus pre- and post-judgment interest at the applicable statutory rate, 

reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs and expenses to the extent permissible by applicable law; (ii) 

awarding the Trustee, for the benefit of the Estate, costs under applicable law; and (iii) granting 

such other and further relief as may be equitable and just.

Case 20-01360-AJC Doc 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 19 of 29
Page 20 of 29

COUNT VIII

FRAUD

(against Pimentel)

130. The Trustee adopts and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 76 as if fully restated herein.

131. At all times relevant, Pimentel served as the manager, sole member, and owner of 

the Debtor.

132. Pimentel, acting through the Debtor, intentionally made misrepresentations of 

material facts to others or omitted material facts to them.

133. Pimentel intended that others would rely upon the misrepresentations or omissions.

134. Others reasonably relied upon Pimentel’s misrepresentations or omissions to their 

detriment.

135. The Debtor and its creditors suffered damages as a result of Pimentel’s 

misrepresentations and omissions.

WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully requests the Court enter a judgment in her favor 

against Luis Pimentel: (i) granting compensatory damages, consequential damages, and special 

damages to the Trustee against Pimentel, for the benefit of the Debtor’s Estate, plus pre- and postjudgment interest at the applicable statutory rate, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs and 

expenses to the extent permissible by applicable law; (ii) awarding the Trustee, for the benefit of 

the Estate, costs under applicable law; and (iii) granting such other and further relief as may be 

equitable and just. The Trustee reserves the right to seek punitive damages at the appropriate time

Case 20-01360-AJC Doc 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 20 of 29
Page 21 of 29

COUNT IX

NEGLIGENCE

(against Pimentel)

136. The Trustee adopts and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 76 as if fully restated herein.

137. This is an action by the Trustee against Pimentel for negligence based upon 

negligent, grossly negligent and/or reckless acts and omissions.

138. Pursuant to applicable Florida state law, and principles of common law and equity, 

Pimentel owed a duty to the Debtor and its creditors.

139. As set forth herein, Pimentel breached his duties owed to the Debtor and its 

creditors, and his actions or inactions caused the loss of revenue, loss of corporate value, lost 

profits, and waste and misappropriations of the Debtor’s last remaining assets in an irresponsible 

and grossly negligent manner, with no conceivable benefit for the Debtor or its creditors.

WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully requests the Court enter a judgment in her favor 

against Luis Pimentel for compensatory damages, consequential damages, and special damages 

including, but not limited to: (i) the loss of profits, loss of corporate value, loss of assets and other 

diverted property as a result of Pimentel’s negligent and reckless misconduct; (ii) the 

increased/deepened insolvency of the Debtor; (iii) the increased liabilities of the Debtor; (iv) the 

loss and decrease in value of the assets of the Debtor; and (v) corporate waste damages, along with 

(vi) an award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs; and (vii) granting such other 

and further relief as may be equitable and just. The Trustee reserves the right to seek punitive 

damages at the appropriate time.

Case 20-01360-AJC Doc 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 21 of 29
Page 22 of 29

COUNT X

IMPOSITION OF CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

(against Pimentel)

140. The Trustee adopts and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 76 as if fully restated herein.

141. This is an action by the Trustee against Pimentel for the imposition of a constructive

trust against the 153rd Court Property and the Tesla.

142. Pimentel is the beneficiary of funds of the Debtor and/or one of the Debtor’s alter 

ego entities, which were fraudulently transferred, wrongly misappropriated, and improperly used 

toward the purchase of the 153rd Court Property.

143. The funds of the Debtor and/or one of the Debtor’s alter ego entities were further 

fraudulently transferred, wrongfully misappropriated, and improperly used toward payments on 

the Mortgage for the 153rd Court Property.

144. Upon information and belief, the wrongful misappropriation of funds of the Debtor 

and/or one of the Debtor’s alter ego entities is presently ongoing and being used toward payments 

on the Mortgage for the 153rd Court Property.

145. Pimentel has benefitted by the wrongful misappropriation of funds of the Debtor

and/or one of the Debtor’s alter ego entities, which were used to purchase the 153rd Court Property

and to maintain payments on the Mortgage on the 153rd Court Property.

146. The funds used by Pimentel to purchase the 153rd Court Property and to maintain 

payments on the Mortgage on the 153rd Court Property are traceable to funds misappropriated by 

Pimentel from the Debtor and/or one of the Debtor’s alter ego entities. 

147. The 153rd Court Property must be held in constructive trust as Pimentel is not 

entitled to the benefit of the wrongfully misappropriated funds of the Debtor and/or one of the 

Case 20-01360-AJC Doc 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 22 of 29
Page 23 of 29

Debtor’s alter ego entities that were used to purchase the 153rd Court Property and maintain 

payments on the Mortgage on the 153rd Court Property.

148. Pimentel is also the beneficiary of funds of the Debtor and/or one of the Debtor’s 

alter ego entities, which were fraudulently transferred, wrongly misappropriated, and improperly 

used toward the payments for Pimentel’s Tesla.

149. The funds of the Debtor and/or one of the Debtor’s alter ego entities were further 

fraudulently transferred, wrongfully misappropriated, and improperly used toward payments on 

the Tesla Loan for Pimentel’s Tesla.

150. Upon information and belief, the wrongful misappropriation of funds of the Debtor 

and/or one of the Debtor’s alter ego entities is presently ongoing and being used toward payments 

on the Tesla Loan for Pimentel’s Tesla.

151. Pimentel has benefitted by the wrongful misappropriation of funds of the Debtor

and/or one of the Debtor’s alter ego entities, which were used to maintain payments on the Tesla 

Loan.

152. The funds used by Pimentel to maintain payments on the Tesla Loan are traceable 

to funds misappropriated by Pimentel from the Debtor and/or one of the Debtor’s alter ego entities

153. Pimentel’s Tesla must be held in constructive trust as Pimentel is not entitled to the 

benefit of the wrongfully misappropriated funds of the Debtor and/or one of the Debtor’s alter ego 

entities that were used to maintain payments on the Tesla Loan.

WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully requests the Court enter a judgment in her favor 

against Luis Pimentel: (i) imposing a constructive trust against the 153rd Court Property and Tesla; 

(ii) disgorging Pimentel of all funds of the Debtor and/or one of the Debtor’s alter ego entities

Case 20-01360-AJC Doc 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 23 of 29
Page 24 of 29

which were wrongfully misappropriated by Pimentel with respect to the 153rd Court Property and 

Tesla; and (iii) granting such other and further relief as may be equitable and just. 

COUNT XI

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

(28 U.S.C. § 2201)

(against Exclusive Accordions LLC)

154. The Trustee adopts and realleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 

1 through 76 above as if specifically set forth herein.

155. The Trustee sues Defendant Exclusive Accordions LLC seeking a declaratory 

judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Bankruptcy Rule 7001(9), and 

Florida Statutes § 86.061, determining that Exclusive Accordions LLC is a mere instrumentality 

and alter ego of the Debtor.

156. The Trustee is in doubt and uncertain as to her power, right, status or other legal or 

equitable relation arising from and relating to the Debtor’s relationship with Exclusive Accordions 

LLC.

157. Upon information and belief, Exclusive Accordions LLC has been utilized as a 

mere instrumentality and alter ego of the Debtor.

158. This Court has the power to render relief based upon a declaratory judgment when 

necessary or proper; and if the application is sufficient, this Court should declare that Exclusive 

Accordions LLC, at all times material hereto, was utilized as a mere instrumentality and alter ego

of the Debtor.

159. A present controversy exists between the Trustee and Exclusive Accordions LLC 

concerning the forgoing.

160. A declaration is necessary to determine whether Exclusive Accordions LLC was 

utilized as a mere instrumentality and alter ego of the Debtor.

Case 20-01360-AJC Doc 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 24 of 29
Page 25 of 29

161. It is equitable for this Court to award the Trustee the reimbursement of her costs 

and expenses in this matter, and such an award is proper pursuant to Florida Statutes § 86.081.

WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully requests that the Court enter a judgment in her 

favor against Defendant, Exclusive Accordions LLC: (a) declaring that at all material times 

Exclusive Accordions LLC was and is mere instrumentality and alter ego of the Debtor; (b) 

awarding the Trustee, for the benefit of the Estate, costs in accordance with applicable law; and 

(c) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT XII

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

(28 U.S.C. § 2201)

(against Miami Dade Accordions LLC)

162. The Trustee adopts and realleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 

1 through 76 above as if specifically set forth herein.

163. The Trustee sues Defendant Miami Dade Accordions LLC seeking a declaratory 

judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Bankruptcy Rule 7001(9), and 

Florida Statutes § 86.061, determining that Miami Dade Accordions LLC is a mere instrumentality 

and alter ego of the Debtor.

164. The Trustee is in doubt and uncertain as to her power, right, status or other legal or 

equitable relation arising from and relating to the Debtor’s relationship with Miami Dade 

Accordions LLC.

165. Upon information and belief, Miami Dade Accordions LLC has been utilized as a 

mere instrumentality and alter ego of the Debtor.

166. This Court has the power to render relief based upon a declaratory judgment when 

necessary or proper; and if the application is sufficient, this Court should declare that Miami Dade 

Case 20-01360-AJC Doc 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 25 of 29
Page 26 of 29

Accordions LLC, at all times material hereto, was utilized as a mere instrumentality and alter ego

of the Debtor.

167. A present controversy exists between the Trustee and Miami Dade Accordions LLC 

concerning the forgoing.

168. A declaration is necessary to determine whether Miami Dade Accordions LLC was 

utilized as a mere instrumentality and alter ego of the Debtor.

169. It is equitable for this Court to award the Trustee the reimbursement of her costs 

and expenses in this matter, and such an award is proper pursuant to Florida Statutes § 86.081.

WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully requests that the Court enter a judgment in her 

favor against Defendant, Miami Dade Accordions LLC: (a) declaring that at all material times 

Miami Dade Accordions LLC was and is mere instrumentality and alter ego of the Debtor; (b) 

awarding the Trustee, for the benefit of the Estate, costs in accordance with applicable law; and 

(c) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT XIII

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

(28 U.S.C. § 2201)

(against All Star Shutter LLC)

170. The Trustee adopts and realleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 

1 through 76 above as if specifically set forth herein.

171. The Trustee sues Defendant All Star Shutter LLC seeking a declaratory judgment 

under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Bankruptcy Rule 7001(9), and Florida 

Statutes § 86.061, determining that All Star Shutter LLC is a mere instrumentality and alter ego of 

the Debtor.

172. The Trustee is in doubt and uncertain as to her power, right, status or other legal or 

equitable relation arising from and relating to the Debtor’s relationship with All Star Shutter LLC.

Case 20-01360-AJC Doc 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 26 of 29
Page 27 of 29

173. Upon information and belief, All Star Shutter LLC has been utilized as a mere 

instrumentality and alter ego of the Debtor.

174. This Court has the power to render relief based upon a declaratory judgment when 

necessary or proper; and if the application is sufficient, this Court should declare that All Star 

Shutter LLC, at all times material hereto, was utilized as a mere instrumentality and alter ego of 

the Debtor.

175. A present controversy exists between the Trustee and All Star Shutter LLC 

concerning the forgoing.

176. A declaration is necessary to determine whether All Star Shutter LLC was utilized

as a mere instrumentality and alter ego of the Debtor.

177. It is equitable for this Court to award the Trustee the reimbursement of her costs 

and expenses in this matter, and such an award is proper pursuant to Florida Statutes § 86.081.

WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully requests that the Court enter a judgment in her 

favor against Defendant, All Star Shutter LLC: (a) declaring that at all material times All Star 

Shutter LLC was and is mere instrumentality and alter ego of the Debtor; (b) awarding the Trustee, 

for the benefit of the Estate, costs in accordance with applicable law; and (c) granting such other 

and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Case 20-01360-AJC Doc 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 27 of 29
Page 28 of 29

COUNT XIV

TURNOVER OF PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE

(11 U.S.C. §§ 541, 542)

(against Exclusive Accordions LLC; Miami Dade 

Accordions LLC; and All Star Shutter LLC)

178. The Trustee adopts and realleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 

1 through 76 above as if specifically set forth herein.

179. The Trustee sues Defendants Exclusive Accordions LLC, Miami Dade Accordions 

LLC, and All Star Shutter LLC seeking turnover of the respective Defendants’ books and records 

pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 541, 542, by virtue of the aforementioned Defendants’ status as mere 

instrumentalities and alter egos of the Debtor.

180. As a mere instrumentality or alter ego of the Debtor, all of Exclusive Accordions 

LLC’s books and records are property of the Estate and subject to turnover.

181. As a mere instrumentality or alter ego of the Debtor, all of Miami Dade Accordions 

LLC’s books and records are property of the Estate and subject to turnover.

182. As a mere instrumentality or alter ego of the Debtor, all of All Star Shutter LLC’s 

books and records are property of the Estate and subject to turnover.

183. Accordingly, pursuant to section 542 of the Bankruptcy Code, Defendants 

Exclusive Accordions LLC, Miami Dade Accordions LLC, and All Star Shutter LLC must turn 

over to the Trustee their respective books and records as property of the Estate.

WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully requests that the Court enter a judgment in her 

favor against Defendants Exclusive Accordions LLC, Miami Dade Accordions LLC, and All Star 

Shutter LLC: (a) declaring that the respective books and records of each Defendant are property 

of the Estate; (b) ordering that each Defendant turn over their respective books and records to the 

Trustee; and (c) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Case 20-01360-AJC Doc 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 28 of 29
Page 29 of 29

Dated: September 30, 2020 DUNN LAW, PA.

Counsel for Plaintiff, Marcia T. Dunn, 

as Chapter 7 Trustee

66 West Flagler Street, Suite 400

Miami, Florida 33130

Phone: (786) 433-3866

Fax: (786) 260-0269

michael.dunn@dunnlawpa.com 

jerrod.maddox@dunnlawpa.com

By: /s/ Jerrod M. Maddox

Michael P. Dunn, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 100705

Jerrod M. Maddox, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 117820

Case 20-01360-AJC Doc 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 29 of 29