Corbacho Daudinot v. Puig Valdes et al

Filing 85

MOTION to Stay Proceedings due to Newly Discovered Evidence by Miguel Angel Corbacho Daudinot. Responses due by 6/8/2015 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Bravo, Kenia)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIGUEL ANGEL CORBACHO DAUDINOT.
Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-22589-KMV

v.
YASIEL PUIG VALDES a/k/a YASIEL PUIG
and MARITZA VALDES GONZALEZ.
Defendants.
______________________________________/
MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS DUE TO NEWLY DISCOVERED
EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT’S WRONGDOING HAS PREVENTED PLAINTIFF
FROM PERSONALLY LITIGATING THIS CASE IN THE UNITED STATES
COME NOW the Plaintiff, by and through the undersigned counsel, and respectfully file
this Motion requesting that this court stay the instant proceeding pending Plaintiff’s Resolution
of a Travel Ban from Cuba that was caused by Defendant Puig’s wrongful actions in Cuba,
which were recently discovered by Plaintiff, that have prevented him from timely traveling to the
United States, and in support thereof states:
1.

The Plaintiffs filed the instant case on July 18, 2013, when Plaintiff, was serving

time in Cuban prison as a result of the Defendant’s actions, which were alleged in the Complaint.
2.

Plaintiff had been convicted to a seven year prison sentence on October 8, 2010,

which recognized the time already served by him in prison, which began on January 20, 2010.
3.

Despite Plaintiff’s unavailability at the time of filing, Plaintiff filed the instant

case against the Defendants in the realistic expectation that Plaintiff would be granted
provisional release from prison and that his relatives living in Miami, Florida could claim him
for the purposes of family reunification.
4.

As was expected, on October 6, 2014 the Department of Homeland Security

approved an I-130 visa application that was filed on his behalf, which was approved and sent out.
In December U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services indicated that Corbacho Daudinot could
participate in the Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program based on the approval of his Form
I-130.

5.

Before he could further his efforts to come to the United States, Corbacho

Daudinot was once again detained in September 2014 by Cuban police and held without charges
until the end of the year.
6.

It was not until January 2014, after he was re-released, that Corbacho Daudinot

could once again resume his efforts to come legally to the United States.
7.

Plaintiff was able to obtain early release of his prison sentence in Cuba, which

means that he is deemed as an individual who has fully completed the sentence for which he was
convicted.
8.

After obtaining his early release, he concluded all of the necessary procedures to

bring his citizenship status in Cuba back to that of citizen in good standing. He managed to
obtain his identity card and his passport back from the government, which had taken them when
he was arrested. He also obtained from the Cuban Tribunal a removal of his name from the NoFly list based on his conviction in the Cuban Criminal case.
9.

Despite all of his diligent effort and success in securing his travel to the United

States, Plaintiff was pulled from a line that was boarding a plane to leave the country during
March of 2015, because he was on the no-fly list.
10.

Plaintiff believed at that time that there may have been some miscommunication

between the Tribunal and the National Directorate of Identification, Direction National de
Identification (“DNI”), which maintains the no-fly list.
11.

After much investigation in Cuba regarding Plaintiff’s continued inclusion in the

no-fly list despite the Cuban Tribunal’s consent to his name being excluded from that list, the
Plaintiff learned two (2) days ago, on May 18, 2015, that Corbacho Daudinot was on that list as a
result of a second case in 2011 involving the Human Trafficking of Yasiel Puig, in which Puig
was also the accuser. See “Exhibit A”, a copy of the sentence No. 229 of May 23, 2011 case,
along with its translation.
12.

Plaintiff was not a party to that 2011 Cuban case and has no other criminal

proceedings in Cuba, however, Yasiel Puig was involved in so many cases in Cuba in which he
was accusing individuals of Human Trafficking, that the Cuban court had a template for cases
involving his accusations.
13.

The Cuban court utilized that template in one such case, identified by Sentence

number 229 that took place on May 23, 2011, in which Yasiel Puig was the accuser; the template

2

the court used to write the order for the 2011 case still contained portions of Corbacho
Daudinot’s criminal case and the court failed to remove Corbacho Daudinot from the sentencing
portion of that order, making it appear as if Corbacho Daudinot received a second 7-year prison
sentence in that 2011 case.
14.

The 2011 case was one where Puig was accusing two men—Alberto Yosbel

Bermudez Ferrer and Juan Carlos Lao Gonzalez—who had previously been unknown to
Plaintiff, of Human Trafficking. That raises the number of known persons that Puig has
maliciously and flagrantly accused of Human Trafficking to eleven (11), including Corbacho
Daudinot, Alexander Orozco Noa, Carlos Ivan Hernandez Concepcion, Pablo Camejo Reyes,
Odalys Diaz Gonzalez, Armando Muñiz, Eyder Diaz Calderin, Honorio Diaz and Captain Eugenio
Cañada Perez, the last of whose family is in the United States and seeking legal grievance
against Puig for Cañada’s imprisonment and torture in Cuba.
15.

Even though he was not part and party to the controversy in the 2011 case,

Corbacho Daudinot nonetheless appears in the sentencing order, making appears as though he
has a second seven-year sentence for Human Trafficking.
16.

It was once again Yasiel Puig’s wrongful practice of accusing persons of Human

Trafficking that caused Plaintiff to be unable to come to the United States, making his already
laborious quest for justice almost impossible.
17.

Plaintiff’s inability to come to the United States—due to Puig’s wrongful

actions—caused him to miss a deposition that was scheduled for April 21, 2015. Even though
Plaintiff’s counsel had been in communication with Defendants’ counsel, informing them that
Corbacho Daudinot was detained in Cuba as a result of the DNI no-flight list, Puig immediately
filed for a Motion seeking Rule 37 sanctions on April 21, 2015, after Plaintiff missed his
deposition, requesting that the court dismiss Plaintiff’s case as a form of sanctions. That motion
is set for hearing on May 27, 2015.
18.

Defendant cannot be permitted to gain advantage in the instant case by the

commission of his wrongful acts in Cuba. He has engaged in a malicious pattern of criminal
accusations in Cuba without regard to the lives he destroys, and he has once again embroiled the
Plaintiff in criminal proceedings to which Corbacho Daudinot was not even a party, conveniently
preventing Corbacho Daudinot from traveling to the United States in time to meet with the
3

deadlines established by the Scheduling Order and meaningfully participating in the litigation of
the instant case.
19.

Plaintiff is now again in the process of attempting to remove himself from the no-

fly list due to the 2011 criminal case in which he is not even a party.
20.

As of the filing of this motion, the parties have conducted minimal discovery on

this case. The trial is set for November 16, 2015.
21.

The Plaintiff’s testimony is needed to establish the underlying facts of the case,

and he should be permitted to present his testimony—not only in a deposition—but also during
the trial in the instant case.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
Every district court has the power to stay proceedings as “incidental to the power inherent
in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of the time and
effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254
(1936). Trial courts are afforded “broad discretion” in determining whether to stay a proceeding.
I.A. Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson Nat’l Bank, 793 F 2d 1541, 1551-52 (11th Cir. 1986). Where one or
more parties proposes that a pending proceeding be stayed, “the competing interest which will be
affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must be weighed. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300
F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). When deciding the question of whether to grant a stay, “courts
generally consider the following factors: (1) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a
tactical disadvantage to the nonmovant, (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in the case;
and (3) whether discovery is complete, and a trial date has been set.” Tomco Equipment
Company v. Southeastern Agri-Systems, Inc., 542 F.Supp. 2d 1303.(N.D.Ga. 2008). The
Supreme Court stated, however, that among the competing interests to be considered in a motion
to stay is “the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward”.
Landis, 299 U.S. at 254.
In the case at bar, the Plaintiff has overcome almost insurmountable obstacles—including
being suddenly and unexpectedly detained by Cuban police for several months without
charges—to come to the United States; he not only obtained permission to travel, but he secured
an early release of his criminal sentence, regaining possession of his identification card, and his
passport, and managed to obtain from a Cuban Tribunal an order to remove his name removed
4

from the DNI no-fly list. It was only his unaccountable, forcible, and unknown inclusion in
another one of Puig’s malicious criminal accusations in Cuba that kept the Defendant from
attending his deposition, thereby complying with his discovery obligations and participating
actively in the current litigation.
One point that carries great weight in deciding whether or not to grant a stay of
proceeding is the stage of litigation. In Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., LTD. V. Chimei
Innolux Corp., 2012 WL 7170593 (C.D. Cal 2012), the court held that even though the litigation
had been underway for a year, little discovery had been conducted (neither party had served any
document requests or written discovery and no parties had taken depositions or undertaken
expert discovery), which was a point in favor of a stay. The court held that, since discovery was
in its infancy, there was more work ahead of the parties and the court than behind them, and a
stay would not unduly prejudice either party.
In the case at bar, the Defendants shall not be prejudiced by a stay in the proceedings.
Other than a Request for Production, the Defendants have not undertaken any discovery and the
Plaintiff has not demanded any discovery of the Defendants. While it is never pleasant to be
under the shadow of litigation, a delay in the instant case, which has not involved discovery or
intense motion practice, shall not unduly burden the Defendants in any way, as the underlying
facts and the underlying witnesses shall remain the same, and the work to be undertaken to see
this case to trial shall remain unaltered by the lapse.
Plaintiff should be permitted the opportunity to remove his name from the no-fly list that
would not have been included on the list but for Defendant’s pernicious actions. His visa
application was approved and the USCIS approved him for the family reunification program, he
was released from his sentence, received his passports and legal documentation, and given
permission by Cuba to travel, and it was only his wrongful inclusion in Puig’s 2011 new Cuban
criminal case that have kept him from being here.
Having come this far, it would be unjust and inequitable to deny the Plaintiff his right to
pursue this case and to appear at trail to face the Defendants before a trier of fact.
"There is a constitutional right to a fair trial in a civil case." Latolias v. Whitley, 93 F.3d
205, 207 (5th Cir.1996) (quoting Lemons v. Skidmore, 985 F.2d 354, 357 (7th Cir.1993)); see also
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966) (finding that a fair
5

trial is guaranteed to every person by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the Constitution); Bailey v. Systems Innovation, Inc., 852 F.2d 93, 98 (3d Cir.1988) (holding that
"fairness in a jury trial, whether criminal or civil in nature, is a vital constitutional right");
Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bauer, 522 F.2d 242, 248 (7th Cir.1975)(recognizing that “the
right to a fair trial, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to criminal defendants and to all persons
by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”).
The court in Latolias, further stated that "it is difficult, but essential to maintain [the right
to a fair trial in a civil case] for prisoner-plaintiffs." Id. at 207 (quoting Lemons, 985 F.2d at 357).
Since “the very nature of a trial as a search for truth” (Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 158, 106
S.Ct. 988, 989-90, 89 L.Ed.2d 123 (1986)), “at a minimum, fundamental fairness requires that
plaintiffs have the opportunity to present their cases” in order for the trier of fact can make a
meaningful search for that truth. 93 F. 3d at 207.
The Eleventh Circuit has held that in order to determine whether the prisoner should
appear at trial, the district court must consider factors such as "whether the prisoner's presence
will substantially further the resolution of the case, the security risks presented by the prisoner's
presence, the expense of the prisoner's transportation and safekeeping, and whether the suit can
be stayed until the prisoner is released without prejudice to the cause asserted." Ballard v.
Spradley, 557 F. 2d 476, 480 (5th Cir. 1977). 1 The court should not base the exercise of its
discretion on the probability that a prisoner will succeed on the merits of the claim. Id. at 481.
While the cases above, dealt with the issue of Motions for Habeas Corpus Ad
Testificandum, which is not an option in the instant case because the Plaintiff is not being held
within the United States, they are indicative of the analysis that the court enters in cases like
these, when a Plaintiff is unable to testify in court due to a criminal proceeding that bars him
from attending the trial. Importantly, the court in Ballard stated that “should other considerations
be present… a stay of the action may be appropriate.” Id. at 481 (quoted in ITEL Capital Corp. v.
Dennis Min. Supply and Equipment, Inc., 651 F.2d 405 (5th Cir. 1981).

1

Prior to October 1, 1981, the 11th Circuit was actually part of the 5th Circuit. After the 11th Circuit was created, it
adopted all of the 5th Circuit’s holdings prior to October 1, 1981.

6

In the case at bar, the Plaintiff has no other alternative, but to respectfully request that the
court stay the proceedings for a period of three (3) months so that he may finalize his visa
process and is allowed to attend the deposition—and later, trial—personally.
There will be no prejudice to the cause asserted in the instant case, as all elements are
already in place, the witnesses lined up, and the discovery yet conducted. Moreover, Congress
anticipated that cases raised under the TVPA, based on the inherent nature of the acts prohibited
by the law, which involve extreme suffering conducted under “actual or apparent authority, or
color of law, of a foreign nation” for which the Plaintiff must have first “exhausted adequate and
available remedies in the place in which the conduct giving rise to the claim occurred” prior to
filing a claim, would require an adequate period of time to be brought before the court, and
therefore provided for a ten year statute of limitation for such cases to be raised.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request, that, in the interest of conducting
discovery and having a fair trial and permitting the Plaintiff to present his best case to the trier of
fact, that the Court enter an order staying the instant proceedings so that the Plaintiff can clear
his name from the DNI no-fly list, in which Puig’s wrongful actions have once again placed him.
Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) Certification
On May 22, 2015, the undersigned counsel conferred with counsel for Defendants, Sean
Santini, regarding this motion, in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the motion and
was unable to resolve those issues.

By: s/Kenia Bravo
_
Kenia Bravo, Esq., FBN 68296
Avelino J. Gonzalez, Esq., FBN 75530
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this document was filed in federal
court using CM/ECF on May 22, 2015.
s/Kenia Bravo
_
Kenia Bravo, Esq., FBN 68296
Avelino J. Gonzalez, Esz. FBN 75530
Law Offices of Avelino J. Gonzalez, P.A.
6780 Coral Way, Miami, Florida 33155
Ph: 305-668-3535; Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

7