Casa Express Corp v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
Filing
201
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re [GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART] 154 Motion to Strike filed by Casa Express Corp, [ADOPTED] 181 Report and Recommendations, [OVERRULED] 191 Objections to Report and Recommendations filed by Casa Express Corp, [OVERRULED] 189 Objections to Report and Recommendations, filed by RIM Group Investments III Corp., Planet 2 Reaching, Inc., Raul Gorrin Belisario, RIM Group Investments I Corp., RIM Group Investments II Corp., RI M Group Investments Corp., Posh 8 Dynamic, Inc. ; granting in part and denying in part 154 Motion to Strike 154 MOTION to Strike Affirmative Defenses, 181 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 154 MOTION to Strike Affirmati ve Defenses filed by Casa Express Corp ; Adopting 181 Report and Recommendations on 154 Motion to Strike filed by Casa Express Corp, 181 Report and Recommendations, 191 Objections to Report and Recommendations filed by Casa Expr ess Corp, 189 Objections to Report and Recommendations, filed by RIM Group Investments III Corp., Planet 2 Reaching, Inc., Raul Gorrin Belisario, RIM Group Investments I Corp., RIM Group Investments II Corp., RIM Group Investments Corp., Posh 8 Dynamic, Inc.. Certificate of Appealability: No Ruling Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 5/26/2023. See attached document for full details. (nan)
Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 201 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2023 Page 1 of 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 21-cv-23103-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
CASA EXPRESS CORP, as Trustee
of Casa Express Trust,
Judgement Creditor,
v.
BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA,
Judgment Debtor.
________________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Judgment Creditor Casa Express Corp’s (“Casa”)
Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses. ECF No. [154] (“Motion”). All post-judgment matters,
including the instant Motion, were referred to United States Magistrate Judge Alicia Otazo-Reyes.
ECF No. [148]. On April 18, 2023, Judge Otazo-Reyes issued a Report and Recommendation,
ECF No. [181] (“R&R”) recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part. See
id. at 10. The R&R advised the parties that objections to the R&R must be filed within fourteen
(14) days of the R&R. Id. Casa and impleaded Respondents Raul Gorrin Belisario (“Gorrin”), RIM
Group Investments Corp., RIM Group Investments I Corp., RIM Group Investments II Corp., RIM
Group Investments III Corp., Posh 8 Dynamic Inc., and Planet 2 Reaching Inc. (“Respondents”)
thereafter timely filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, ECF Nos. [189] (“Respondents’
Objections”), [191] (“Casa’s Objections”) (collectively, “Objections”). The parties did not respond
to each other’s Objections. For the reasons that follow the Objections are overruled and the R&R
is adopted.
Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 201 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2023 Page 2 of 9
Case No. 21-cv-23103-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
I.
BACKGROUND
On August 27, 2021, Casa commenced this action by registering an Amended Final
Judgment issued by the Southern District of New York against Judgment Debtor Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela (“Venezuela”). ECF No. [1]. Casa thereafter filed its Ex Parte Expedited
Motion to Commence Proceedings Supplementary, to Implead Defendants, and for Issuance of
Statutory Notices to Appear, ECF No. [3], on September 10, 2021. On June 7, 2022, Casa filed its
First Motion to Amend, ECF No. [42]. That Motion was Granted by Judge Otazo-Reyes, see ECF
No. [59], and Casa filed its Amended Ex Parte Expedited Motion to Commence Proceedings
Supplementary, ECF No. [60], on September 2, 2022. Statutory Notices to Appear were issued to
Respondents. ECF Nos. [63]-[71].
On January 20, 2023, Respondents filed their Affidavit in Response to the Notices to
Appear and Memorandum in Opposition to the Amended Motion for Proceedings Supplementary.
ECF No. [127]. The Memorandum raises eleven affirmative defenses. Casa filed a Motion to Strike
Affirmative Defenses in which it moved to strike the First, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and
Tenth Affirmative Defenses. ECF No. [154]. The relevant affirmative defenses are: (1) the
Property is immune from attachment and execution under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
(“FSIA”); (6) failure to join an indispensable party; (7) lack of personal jurisdiction over
Respondents and failure of service on Gorrin; (8) failure to satisfy Florida’s statutory requirements
for filing a motion to commence proceedings supplementary; (9) lack of ancillary subject matter
jurisdiction; and (10) the Judgment is void for lack of proper service. Id. Respondents filed a
Response in Opposition to all but the Motion to Strike the Tenth Affirmative Defense, which they
voluntarily withdrew, ECF No. [165]. Casa filed a Reply, ECF No. [171]. The case was referred
to Judge Otazo-Reyes for all post-judgment matters. ECF No. [148]. On April 18, 2023, Judge
2
Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 201 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2023 Page 3 of 9
Case No. 21-cv-23103-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
Otazo-Reyes issued an R&R on the instant Motion, ECF No. [181], in which she recommended
the Motion be granted in part and denied in part, to strike the Seventh Affirmative Defense as to
Planet 2 Reaching Inc. and Posh 8 Dynamic Inc., and the Eighth Affirmative Defense but not strike
the remaining Affirmative Defenses.
Respondents timely objected to the recommendation that the Eighth Affirmative Defense
be stricken, arguing that the plain language of the relevant statute requires an affidavit, as stated
in their Eighth Affirmative Defense. ECF No. [189]. Casa also timely filed Objections, arguing (1)
the R&R incorrectly found that the First Affirmative Defense need not be stricken because it
incorrectly found that the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court’s holding that a foreign state is
the only party with standing to raise a FSIA defense; (2) the R&R incorrectly concluded that the
Sixth Affirmative Defense is not patently frivolous because the Court has an obligation to consider
Venezuela’s immunity from suit; and (3) the R&R incorrectly found that the Ninth Affirmative
Defense alleging lack of subject matter jurisdiction need not be stricken. ECF No. [191]. Neither
party responded to the others’ Objections.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
A.
Objections to R&R
“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party
must file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings
and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v.
Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822
(11th Cir. 1989)) (alterations omitted). The objections must also present “supporting legal
authority.” S.D. Fla. L. Mag. J.R. 4(b). The portions of the report and recommendation to which
an objection is made are reviewed de novo only if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings
that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see
3
Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 201 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2023 Page 4 of 9
Case No. 21-cv-23103-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). If a party fails to object to any portion of the magistrate judge’s
report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784 (quoting Johnson
v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999)); see also Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v.
WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001). “It is improper for
an objecting party to . . . submit [ ] papers to a district court which are nothing more than a
rehashing of the same arguments and positions taken in the original papers submitted to the
Magistrate Judge. Clearly, parties are not to be afforded a ‘second bite at the apple’ when they file
objections to an R & R.” Marlite, Inc. v. Eckenrod, No. 10-23641-CIV, 2012 WL 3614212, at *2
(S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2012) (quoting Camardo v. Gen. Motors Hourly-Rate Emps. Pension Plan,
806 F. Supp. 380, 382 (W.D.N.Y. 1992)). A district court may accept, reject, or modify a
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
B.
Strike Affirmative Defenses
“An affirmative defense is one that admits to the complaint, but avoids liability, wholly or
partly, by new allegations of excuse, justification, or other negating matters.” Adams v. Jumpstart
Wireless Corp., 294 F.R.D. 668, 671 (S.D. Fla. 2013). “A defense that simply points out a defect
or lack of evidence in the plaintiff’s case is not an affirmative defense.” Id. (citing Flav-O-Rich,
Inc. v. Rawson Food Serv., Inc. (In re Rawson Food Serv., Inc.)), 846 F.2d 1343, 1349 (11th Cir.
1988)). “[A]ffirmative defenses are not subject to the heightened pleading standard elucidated in
Twombly and Iqbal.” Northrop & Johnson Holding Co., Inc. v. Leahy, No. 16-cv-63008, 2017 WL
5632041, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 22, 2017) (quotation marks omitted).
Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to “strike from a pleading
an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(f). District courts have “broad discretion in considering a motion to strike under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(f).” Morrison v. Exec. Aircraft Refinishing, Inc., 434 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 1317-18
4
Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 201 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2023 Page 5 of 9
Case No. 21-cv-23103-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
(S.D. Fla. 2005). Despite this discretion, “[a] motion to strike is a drastic remedy[,] which is
disfavored by the courts and will usually be denied unless the allegations have no possible relation
to the controversy and may cause prejudice to one of the parties.” Thompson v. Kindred Nursing
Ctrs. E., LLC, 211 F. Supp. 2d 1345, 1348 (M.D. Fla. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted);
see also Gen. Defense Corp. v. Restorick, No. 08-CV-60537, 2008 WL 11417688, at *2 (S.D. Fla.
Nov. 3, 2008) (“[T]he standard for striking a defense is extremely high.” (quotation marks
omitted)). Under this standard, “‘an affirmative defense must be stricken when the defense is
comprised of no more than ‘bare-bones, conclusory allegations’ or is ‘insufficient as a matter of
law.’” Northrop & Johnson Holding Co., 2017 WL 5632041, at *3 (quoting Adams, 294 F.R.D. at
671 and Home Mgmt. Sols., Inc. v. Prescient, Inc., No. 07-CV-20608, 2007 WL 2412834, at *2
(S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2007)). “A defense is insufficient as a matter of law only if: (1) on the face of
the pleadings, it is patently frivolous, or (2) it is clearly invalid as a matter of law.” Microsoft Corp.
v. Jesse’s Computers & Repair, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 681, 683 (M.D. Fla. 2002); see also Reyher v.
Trans World Airlines, Inc., 881 F. Supp. 574, 576 (M.D. Fla. 1995) (Where “a defense puts into
issue relevant and substantial legal and factual questions, it is ‘sufficient’ and may survive a motion
to strike, particularly when there is no showing of prejudice to the movant.”).
III.
DISCUSSION
Because the parties timely filed Objections to the R&R, the Court considers de novo the Motion
to Strike Affirmative Defenses One, Six, Eight, and Nine. The Court also addresses the Seventh
Affirmative Defense in light of its Order sustaining Objections to the Report and Recommendation
on Respondent Gorrin’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Each Affirmative
Defense is addressed in turn.
5
Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 201 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2023 Page 6 of 9
Case No. 21-cv-23103-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
A.
First Affirmative Defense
Respondents’ First Affirmative Defense asserts immunity from attachment under the FSIA.
Casa challenges the First Affirmative Defense, arguing that Respondents do not have standing to
assert immunity. Judge Otazo-Reyes recommended that this affirmative defense not be stricken
for lack of standing because “Venezuela’s non-appearance in this action does not preclude
Respondents from raising the issue of sovereign immunity.” ECF No. [181] at 6. Casa argues that
only the foreign state has the standing to invoke an affirmative defense of immunity under the
FSIA and the R&R included an incorrect analysis of case law from the Northern District of Illinois
and the Seventh Circuit.
The Eleventh Circuit has held that “[p]arties other than a foreign sovereign ordinarily lack
standing to raise the defense of sovereign immunity.” Aquamar, S.A. v. Del Monte Fresh Produce
N.A., Inc., 179 F.3d 1279, 1290 (11th Cir. 1999). The Eleventh Circuit further explained that
“[w]hen the court's jurisdiction rests on the presence of the foreign sovereign, however, the court
may address the issue independently.” Id.
As Judge Otazo-Reyes correctly found, Venezuela’s non-appearance therefore does not
preclude Respondents from raising the issue of sovereign immunity especially in light of their
Sixth Affirmative Defense that Venezuela is a necessary party. Because the First Affirmative
Defense is not patently frivolous or clearly invalid as a matter of law, the Court does not strike it.
B.
Sixth Affirmative Defense
Casa seeks to strike Respondents’ Sixth Affirmative Defense that Casa failed to join an
indispensable party, Venezuela. The R&R recommends that the Sixth Affirmative Defense not be
stricken based on frivolousness because it is related to the First Affirmative Defense and
Venezuela’s possible immunity from suit. Casa objects and argues that “[w]hile the R&R correctly
6
Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 201 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2023 Page 7 of 9
Case No. 21-cv-23103-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
recognizes that the Court has an obligation to consider the issue it inexplicably fails to do so.” In
raising that Objection, Casa requests that the Court consider more than whether the affirmative
defense is clearly frivolous and instead asks the Court to engage in a factual and legal analysis.
The existence or “lack of factual support” for this defense is not properly addressed at this stage
and before the parties have had a full opportunity to conduct discovery. See Birren v. Royal
Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 336 F.R.D. 688, 697 (S.D. Fla. 2020) (quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, for reasons previously explained, whether joinder of Venezuela is proper under the
FSIA is a factual question and not patently frivolous or clearly invalid as a matter of law.
Accordingly, Casa’s Objection is overruled, and the Sixth Affirmative Defense is not stricken.
C.
Seventh Affirmative Defense
Respondents’ Seventh Affirmative Defense is lack of personal jurisdiction. Casa moves to
strike the Seventh Affirmative Defense because Respondents have been actively litigating this
action and have waived personal jurisdiction. As the Court addressed in its Order on Objections to
the Report & Recommendation on Gorrin’s Motion to Dismiss, Gorrin has not waived the right to
assert a lack of personal jurisdiction defense. The R&R correctly notes that RIM Group
Investments Corp., RIM Group Investments I Corp., RIM Group Investments II Corp., and RIM
Group Investments III Corp. withdrew this defense. There was no objection to Judge OtazoReyes’s finding that Planet 2 Reaching Inc. and Posh 8 Dynamic Inc. waived their lack of personal
jurisdiction defense by failing to assert it in their initial responsive pleading. The Court finds that
recommendation to be consistent with the law. Accordingly, the Seventh Affirmative Defense shall
proceed only as to Gorrin, who did assert the affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction
in his initial pleading.
7
Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 201 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2023 Page 8 of 9
Case No. 21-cv-23103-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
D.
Eighth Affirmative Defense
Casa moves to strike Respondents’ Eighth Affirmative Defense that Casa failed to satisfy
the requirements to commence proceedings supplementary. Judge Otazo-Reyes recommends
striking the Eighth Affirmative Defense as redundant, legally insufficient, and patently frivolous
in light of the Court’s prior rulings regarding Casa’s satisfaction of the statutory prerequisites. ECF
No. [181] at 8-9. Respondents object, arguing that the plain language of the relevant Florida Statute
“requires an affidavit listing ‘the unsatisfied amount of the judgment or judgment lien, including
costs and interests, and stating that the execution is valid and outstanding.’” ECF No. [189] at 3
(quoting Fla. Stat. § 56.29(1)).
On September 14, 2021, the Court found that all of Fla. Stat. § 56.29(1)’s prerequisites
were met and granted Casa’s Motion to Commence Proceedings Supplementary. ECF No. [4].
Accordingly, the Court overrules Respondents’ Objections and strikes the Eighth Affirmative
Defense.
E.
Ninth Affirmative Defense
Respondents’ Ninth Affirmative Defense alleges that this Court lacks ancillary subject
matter jurisdiction. Judge Otazo-Reyes recommended not striking the Ninth Affirmative Defense,
because a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction is not patently frivolous “because ‘the Court
must always ensure that it has jurisdiction.’” ECF No. [181] at 9-10 (quoting Marino v. Broward
Sheriff’s Off., No. 20-CV-60980, 2021 WL 9347050, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2021). Casa objects
and argues that because the Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(1),
and the Ninth Affirmative Defense should be stricken as patently frivolous.
As Judge Otazo-Reyes correctly pointed out, “[a] federal court not only has the power but
also the obligation at any time to inquire into jurisdiction whenever the possibility that jurisdiction
8
Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 201 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2023 Page 9 of 9
Case No. 21-cv-23103-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
does not exist arises.” Fitzgerald v. Seaboard Sys. R.R., Inc., 760 F.2d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 1985)
(citations omitted). As such, a defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not patently frivolous
and the Court will not strike it.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. [181], is ADOPTED.
2. Casa’s Objections, ECF No. [191], are OVERRULED.
3. Respondents’ Objections, ECF No. [189], are OVERRULED.
4. Casa’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses, ECF No. [154], is GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART consistent with this Order.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on May 26, 2023.
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?