Casa Express Corp v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Filing 202

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re [STAYED]- 158 Motion to Vacate,, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, filed by Collins Apt. 4401, LLC, Fisher Isl. 7043, LLC,[ADOPTED]- 182 Report and Recommendations, [OVERRULED]-[192 ] Objections to Report and Recommendations filed by Casa Express Corp ; staying 158 Motion to Vacate 158 MOTION to Vacate Order Granting Ex Parte Emergency Motion to Implead Third Parties (ECF No. 126) (Sealed) MOTION TO DISMISS 3 EX PARTE MOTION on Expedited Basis to Commence Proceedings Supplementary , 60 Amended MOTION to Commence Proceedings Supplementary FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , 182 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 158 MOTI ON to Vacate Order Granting Ex Parte Emergency Motion to Implead Third Parties (ECF No. 126) (Sealed) MOTION TO DISMISS 3 EX PARTE MOTION on Expedited Basis to Commence Proceedings Supplementary ; staying 158 Motion to Dismiss for Fa ilure to State a Claim; Adopting 182 Report and Recommendations on 158 Motion to Vacate,, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, filed by Collins Apt. 4401, LLC, Fisher Isl. 7043, LLC, 182 Report and Recommendations, 192 Objections to Report and Recommendations filed by Casa Express Corp. Certificate of Appealability: No Ruling Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 5/30/2023. See attached document for full details. (nan)

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 202 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2023 Page 1 of 5

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 Impleaded Defendants Collins Apt. 4401, LLC
and Fisher Isl. 7043, LLC’s (collectively, “Caballero Entities”) Motion to Vacate Order Granting
Ex Parte Emergency Motion to Implead Third Parties, and Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6), ECF No. [158] (“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. [182] (“R&R”)
recommending that the Motion be stayed in the interest of judicial economy pending further
proceedings in Antonio Caballero v. FARC, et al., Case No. 18-CV-25337-KMM (S.D. Fla.). See
id. at 5. 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 Express Corp (“Casa”) thereafter timely filed Objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s R&R, ECF No. [192] (“Objections”). The Caballero Entities did not respond
to Casa’s Objections. For the reasons that follow, the Objections are overruled and the R&R is
adopted.

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 202 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2023 Page 2 of 5
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 June 7, 2022, Casa filed its First Motion to Amend,
ECF No. [42], that was granted by Judge Otazo-Reyes, see ECF No. [59]. Casa thereafter filed its
Amended Ex Parte Expedited Motion to Commence Proceedings Supplementary, ECF No. [60],
on September 2, 2022.
On January 19, 2023, Casa filed its Ex Parte Emergency Motion to Implead Third Parties
Fisher Isl. 7043, LLC and Collins Apt. 440, LLC, arguing that the Caballero Entities took title to
the Fisher Island Property 1 and the Collins Avenue Property 2 subject to the outcome of this
supplementary proceeding. ECF No. [122]. The Court granted the Ex Parte Emergency Motion
and issued statutory notices to appear. ECF No. [126].
On February 13, 2023, the Caballero Entities filed the instant Motion. ECF No. [158]. Casa
filed a Response in Opposition, ECF No. [167], to which the Caballero Entities filed a Reply, ECF
No. [170]. The case was referred to Judge Otazo-Reyes for all post-judgment matters. ECF No.
[148]. On April 18, 2023, Judge Otazo-Reyes issued a R&R on the instant Motion, ECF No. [182],
in which she recommended the Motion be stayed pending further proceedings in Antonio
Caballero v. FARC, et al. Casa timely filed Objections, in which it argues that “[t]he R&R fails to

1

“The Fisher Island Property” refers to the real property located at 7043 Fisher Island Dr., Unit
7043, Fisher Island, Florida.
2
“The Collins Avenue Property” refers to the property located at 18555 Collins Avenue, Unit
4401, Sunny lsles Beach, Florida 33160.

2

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 202 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2023 Page 3 of 5
Case No. 21-cv-23103-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
address the arguments that were properly submitted for the Court’s consideration” and “Plaintiff
respectfully disagrees that staying adjudication of the [M]otion would serve judicial efficiency.”
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
“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
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).

3

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 202 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2023 Page 4 of 5
Case No. 21-cv-23103-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
III.

DISCUSSION
Judge Otazo-Reyes correctly noted that in Antonio Caballero v. FARC, et al., the sale of

the Collins Avenue Property and the Fisher Island Property to the Caballero Entities is being
challenged and “[a] jury trial ‘on the issue of agency and instrumentality determination’ has been
set for August 28, 2023.” ECF No. [182] at 5 (quoting Antonio Caballero v. FARC, et al., Case
No. 18-CV-25337 at ECF No. [216].) The R&R explains that should the trier of fact find that the
interested parties in that case are not agents or instrumentalities of FARC, the sale of the Collins
Avenue Property and Fisher Island Property to the Caballero Entities will be set aside and the
Caballero Entities will no longer be proper Impleaded Defendants in this case. Id. Judge OtazoReyes therefore recommended that the instant Motion be stayed pending further proceedings in
Antonio Caballero v. FARC, et al.
Casa objected, arguing that “[i]f the Caballero Entities prevail in trial, then the parties
would have to re-litigate the same issues that have already been fully briefed and argued before
the Court.” Casa therefore argues that judicial economy weighs in favor of considering the merits
of the Motion at this time. However, the parties will not need to file new briefs. The Court will
simply consider the fully briefed issues if the Caballero entities do prevail at trial. It is at that point
in time when a ruling on the Motion would be appropriate and not mooted by the outcome of other
pending litigation. Moreover, judicial economy would favor an adjudication of the instant Motion
on its merits. A district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power
to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). Here, a stay is appropriate.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. [182], is ADOPTED.

4

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 202 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2023 Page 5 of 5
Case No. 21-cv-23103-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
2. Casa’s Objections, ECF No. [192], are OVERRULED.
3. The Caballero Entities Motion to Vacate Order Granting Ex Parte Emergency Motion
to Implead Third Parties, and Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), ECF No.
[158], is STAYED pending further proceedings in Antonio Caballero v. FARC, et al.,
Case No. 18-CV-25337.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on May 30, 2023.

BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

5