Garcia v. Hilton Hotels International, Inc.

United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico · 1951 · Civil Procedure

97 F. Supp. 5 (1951)

Updated July 29, 2026

Civil ProcedureMotions to dismissMore definite statementMotion to strikeDefamation privilegeRule 12(b)(6)Rule 12(e)Rule 8(a)

Facts

Plaintiff, a citizen and resident of Puerto Rico, sued defendant, a Delaware corporation, for damages for defamation. Paragraph 4 of the complaint alleged that on August 22, 1950, plaintiff was violently discharged and falsely and slanderously accused of bringing women into hotel rooms for prostitution. Paragraphs 5 through 8 alleged that after his discharge plaintiff sought severance pay and overtime before the Puerto Rico Labor Department, and that during that hearing defendant repeated the same accusation. The complaint did not expressly set out the facts of publication in Paragraph 4 or substantially quote the alleged slanderous words beyond the accusation as pleaded.

Issue

Whether the complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because it did not expressly allege publication and because the alleged slander was conditionally privileged. Also, whether allegations concerning statements made during a Labor Department hearing should be stricken as absolutely privileged, and whether plaintiff should be required to provide a more definite statement of the alleged slander and publication.

Rule

Under Rule 8(a), a pleader need only provide a short and plain statement of the claim showing entitlement to relief, and dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper only when it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff would be entitled to no relief under any state of facts provable in support of the claim. In defamation cases, conditional privilege is a qualified affirmative defense that must ordinarily be raised in an answer and does not warrant dismissal where plaintiff may prove abuse of the privilege or actual malice; by contrast, absolute privilege is conclusive and may defeat the claim on the face of the complaint. A more definite statement may be ordered when a slander complaint fails substantially to set out the alleged words or the facts relied on to establish publication.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Nora Velasquez sued Desert Crest Logistics for slander, alleging that when she was fired, the company falsely accused her of padding invoices and called her dishonest. The complaint does not expressly say the accusation was heard by any third person, but it describes the accusation as slanderous and seeks damages for injury to reputation.

How should the court most likely rule on the employer's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim?

Explanation. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, not whether it perfectly states a cause of action. Construed favorably to the plaintiff, a complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears to a certainty that no relief could be granted under any provable facts within the complaint's framework. Even if publication is not expressly pleaded, dismissal is improper where publication could reasonably be proved at trial.