Marron et al v. Maduro Moros et al, No. 1:2021cv23190 - Document 108 (S.D. Fla. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER granting 47 Motion for Writ of Execution as to the Pinecrest Property and Deferring Ruling on the Pinecrest LLC and FRYD Mortgage LLC's Legal and Factual Challenges. Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 9/29/2023. See attached document for full details. (mmd)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UN ITED STATES DISTRICT COU RT FO R TH E SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA M iam iDivision CaseNtim ber:21-23190-C1V-M OltENO CA RLO S EDU ARD O M A RR ON ,M A RIA M ARR ON ,C.R.,a m inor,and S.A .,a m inor, Plaintiffs, VS. N lcoLA s M A D UR O M o Ro s,FUER ZA S A RM AD A S REv o Lu cloN Alklo s DE c ol-oM BlA ,CA RTEL olrTH E sUN s, V LA D IM IR PAD RIN O LoPEz,M A IK EL Jo sE M oltsw o PEREz ,N ESTOR LU IS REVEROL TORREs,TAREK w ILLIAM SAAB,and TARECK EL AIssAM I, D efendants. O R DER G M NTIN G M O TIO N FO R W RIT O F EX E CU TIO N A S TO TH E PINE CR EST PR O PER TY AN D DEFER RIN G R ULIN G O N TH E PIN EC RE ST LL C AN D FR YD M O R TG A G E LL C'S LEG AL AN D FA CTU AL CH AL LEN G ES Plaintiffs,Carlos M an-on and hisfam ily,filed a M otion f0rW ritofExecutitm underthe Tenorism Risk lnsuranceAct($CTR1A'')astotwopropertiesownedbyLimitedLiabillty Com panies operated by Sam ark Lopez B ello,w ho isalleged to be an agentofD efendants Tarek slAissamiandthecartelofthesuns.seej2O1(a' )oftheTerrorism RiskInsuranceActof2002, pub.L.xo.107-297,j2ol(a),116stat.2322,2337.1oneproperty isahomeinpinecrest, Marron et al v. Maduro Moros et al Doc. 108 Florida and the otheris a M iam iBeach condom inium .The Coul'talready denied the m otion asto theM iamiBeach condominium becausethestatecoul'thadorderedajudicialsaleofthepropel'ty to rem edy the condom inium association's lien.Once the lien w aspaid,the rem aining fundsfrom lThisprovision iscodifiedasanoteto28U.S.C.j 1610. Dockets.Justia.com thatsale weredeposited into ablocked interestbearipg accoùntatFirstHorizon Bank.Plaintiffs tiled am otion forwritofgarnishmentasto thoseproceeds,andthe Clerk ofCoullisstted the writof garnislnm ent.The Coul' tdeferred ruling on the m otion forw ritofexecution asto the PinecrestH om e and allow ed the partiesto file supplem entalbriefing. Plaintiffs'supplem entalbriefrequeststhe Courtem ploy theprocedure used in Stansellv. RevolutionaryArmedForcesofcolombia,771F.3d713,729(1lth Cir.2014)(Stansell.Jf),and Caballerov.FuerzasArmadasRevolucional-iasdeColombia,562F.Supp.3c1867 (C.D.Ca. 2021).lnthosecases,thefederaldistrictcoul4sissuedexpartewritsofexecution after determiningtheplaintiffsmadeaprimafacieshowingoftheelementsofaTRIA actionand allow ed the alleged agenciesorinstrum entalitiesan opportunity to laterrefute the issuance ofthe writspriortolevy.TheEleventh CircuitupheldthisprocedtlreinStansell11statingthatClgdquring the pendency ofexecution proceediltgs,a num berofevents m ay occurwhich m ake satisfaction usingaparticularassetimpossible.Otherjudgmentcreditorsmayseektoexecuteagainstthe asset.''StansellII,771F.3dat729(tsBecausetheLMathewsv.Eldridgejfactorsweighin favorof imm ediateattachm ent,Claimantswerenotconstitutionally entitledto ahearingbeforethewrit issued.'').Relyingonthisadmonition,thePlaintiffsurgethisCoul'ttoissuethewritofexecution to secure the priority oftheirclaim asto the Pinecresthom e. ln this case,how ever,the Cöu14 did notissue the w ritsexparte,asoriginally requested by the Plaintiffs,butrather,the Coul'trequired the Plaintiffsto provide notice to the interested parties consistentw ith StansellITsinstruction that(Cindividualsw hose property interestsare at stakeareentitledtonoticeandanopportunitytobeheard.''f#.(quotingDusenberyv.United States,534U.S.161,167(2002)).TheCou14heardoralargument,andallowedbriefing.Intheir supplementalbrief,PlaintiffsrequesttheCom-tevaluatethziïprimafaciecasetodetermine whetherto issueawritofexecution,and Plaintiffsagreedto refrain from levyingthewrit pending' resolution ofthe rem aining legalchallenges,and to allow the interested parties an opportunitytorebutPlaintiffs'primafacieshowing. Following thePlaintiffs'statementagreeing torefrain from levying thewritofexecution, the Courtissued an orderto show cause to . requestthe interested partiesrespond asto why the Stansell11and Caballero procedurewasimproper.TheLLC ownerofthePinecresthom eargues theprocedureisimproperbecausethedefaultjudgmentinthiscasedoesnotestablishthatthe D efendants engaged in terrorism underthe federalAm i-Terrorism A ct,and therefore,Plaintiffs failtostateaclaim underTRIA.Specifically,itarguesthedpfaultjudgmenttsndstheDefendantù engaged in narcoterrorism ,which isnotan actcjftenorism .The m ortgage com pany on the Pinecresthom e,FRYD M olgage,also opposed theprocedurearguingthatthepropertiesin Stansell11 and in Caballcro w ere owned outrightby the claim ants,and the property here is ow ned by the daughter ofSam ark Lopez Bello and hasa m ortgage.Forthese reasons,the interested partiesrequestthe Courtnotissue the w ritof execution despite the Plaintiffs' ' agreem entto refrain from levying the w rit.This Courtw illnow exam ine threshold legalissues raised by the interested pa/ies and then,m ake a determ inatioh as to w hetherthe Plaintiffs establishaprimafaciecaseunderTRIA. AssetforthinthisOrder,theCou14findsithassubjectmatlerjurisdictionandthefactors w eigh againstabsention.The Coul' talso findsPlaintiffs have proferred sufficientevidence to issue the w ritofexecution pending resolution oftherem aining issues.See Stansellv. RevolutionaryArmedForcesofcolombia,45F.4th 1340,1350(Stansell/ (11thCir.2022)CW third party'sassetsm ustbe blocked underthe TRIA w heh the m otion forw rit...isfiled,and whenthewritisissued.:utthatdoesnotmeanthatagency/instrumentality statusmustbe determinedasofthatpointintime.'');SeealsoStansellv.LopezBello(StansellffY,802F. App'x445,449(11th Cir.2020)(findingSamarkLopezBellowasnotdenieddueprocesswhere districtcou!' tissuedwritsandlatergavehim anopportunitytoc6ntestthefindingsl.z THIS CAUSE camebeforetheCourtupon Plaintiffs'SupplementalBrief(D.E.78)and thePlaintiffs'M otionforW ritofExecution(D.E.47). TH E COU RT has considered the m otion, the response, oral argum ent, the pertinent pol-tionsofthe record,and being othetwise fully advised in the prem ises,itis AbJUDGED thattheM otionforW ritofExectltionisGRANTED andtheCourtdirects theClerkofCou14toissueawritofexecutionintheform attachedtothePlaintiffs'motion(D.E. 47-1)astothePinecresthomelocatedat9000S.W .631.dCourt,M iami,Florida.TheCoul't reservesjurisdictionbasedonthePlaintiffs'agreementtorefrainfrom levyingthewritpending resolution ofthe rem aining legaland factualchallenges.Therefore itis ADJUDOED thatanyinterestedparty mayfileaM otiontoQuashtheW ritofExecution by no laterthan O ctober 19,2023.ltis also A D M D GED thatthe PinecrestLLC and the M iam iBeach LLC shallgive notice by no laterthan O ctober 19.2023,to the A ttorney G eneralofthe State ofFlorida oftheirpending m otion to filjd the state fugitive disentitlem entactunconstitutional.Follow ing notice to the Attorney OeneraloftheStateofFlozida,theLLCSsliallfileanoticeindicatingtheircompliance W ith thisruling.The Coul'tw illallow the A ttorney GeneralofFlorida to tile a response to the m otion. 2Atthistime,theremaining issues,includebutarenotlim itedto,tke constitutionality ofFlorida'sfugitive disentitlem entstatute,the validity ofFRYD M ongage'slien,a finaldeterm ination as to whetherthe Pinecresthom e isO FAc-blocked,a determ ination as to Sam ark Lopez Bello's statusas an agentand instrum entality ofTarek E1 A issam iandtheCarteloftheSuns,andadeterm inationthatEIAissam iand theCarteloftheSunsareterrorists underTRIA.TheCour' talsoreservesrulingonwhetherajul' ytrialonthefacmalissuesisnecessaly.SeeStansellK 45 F.4that1356(:$Thequestion forus,then,iswhethertheevidencepresentedcreated issuesofmaterialfactasto Mr.Lopez'sagencyorinstrumentalitystatus.Ifso,ajul' ytrialwasrequired.'')(citingj77.08,Fla.Stat.,which providesarighttojurytrialingarnishmentproceedings). 1. Backzround On January23,2023,theCourtawardedPlaintiffsafinaldefaultjudgmentagainstthe Defendants,jointlyandseverally,intheamountof$153,843,976.Thejudgmentremains unsatistied.lngrantingdefaultjudgment,thisCoul' trecognizedthatxDefendamsZdnàpped PlaintiffC arlos M arron and detained him in V enezuela fora year,and.the D efendantsextorted money from hiswife,PlaintiffM ariaM arron.Thedefaultjudgmentalsofolmdthatthe D efendants,including Tarek ElAissainiand the Cartelofthe Suns,com m itted narcotenorism Cdusingnarcoticssalesin Floridatofund theiractsofterrorism athom e.''OrderGranting M otion forDefaultJudgment,ECF 44at6(S.D.Fla.Jan.23,2023).Astotheindividualdefendant Tarek ElA issam i,the United Statescharged him with conspiring to evade sanctionsunderthe ForeignNarcoticsKingpinDesignation(thetsloingpinAct'').UnitedStatesv.ElAissami,No.19cr-144(S.D.N.Y.M ar.8,2019)(Supersedinglndictment).Thesameexactindictmentcharged Sam ark Jose Lopez Bello forhis role in aiding ElA issam i.1d.Lopez Bello isnota defendantifl thiscivilcase. The K itlgpin Actand its corresponding regulations block a11propetty and interests w ithin the U nited States owned by foreign persons designated by the United StatesD epartm entof Treasury OfficeofForeignAssetControl(OFAC)astsspeciallyDesignatedNarcotics Traffickers.''21U.S.C.j1904(b);31C.F.R.sj598.202,598.301.OnFebruary 13,2017,OFAC designated Tarek ElAissam iand lam ark LopezBello asSpecially Designated Narcotics Traffickerspursuantto the Kingpin A ct.Lopez Bello's designation w aspublished in the Federal Registeron Febtuary 17,2017,w hich is the operativè date afterwhich hisproperty becam e UFAc-blocked. A fterobtaining default,Plaintiffs,CarlosEduardo M anon,hisw ife M aria M arron,and 5 theirchildren,filed an expedited Ex Patte M otion forW rits ofExecution as to two properties, owned by Lim ited Liability Com panies,w hich Plaintiffs contend are shellcom panies owned and operated by Sam ark Jose Lopez Bello.One propeity isa hom e located at9000 S.W .631. d Coul-t, M iami,Florida(thetcpinecresthome'')andtheotherisacondominium locatedat6301Collins Avenue,Apt.1008,M iamiBeach,Florida(thed'M iamiBeachcondominium''). UnderTRIA,terrorism victimssuch asthePlaintiffsmay satisfytheirjudgmentfrom property blocked by OFA C.TRIA provides a rightofaction to recover againstblodked property ow ned by an agentorinstrum entality ofa ten-oristortela-oristorganization.3Plaintiffs are invoking thisstatutory rightin theirm otion l'equesting w ritsofexecution asto the two propertieg based on Lopez B ello'srole asan agentorinstrum entality oftw o D efendants in this case,the Cartelofthe Suns >nd Tarek ElAissam i. There are interested partiesw ith claim son theproperties.ln the M otion for W ritsof Execution,PlaintiffsadvisetheCoul'tthatthePinecresthomeisthesubjectofanongoingstate coul'tforeclostlre proceeding.See FrJ/J M ortgage,LL C v.9000 S.r 'Z 631-61Cozlrr,ffC,tî M aria Lopez,No.2020-016686-CA-01(11thJud.Cir.Ct.).4TheCou14requiredthePlaintiffsto provide notice oftheirM otion forW rits ofExecution to interested partiesand setthe m atterfor hearing on M arch 2,2023.The Courtallow ed interested partiesto file responsesto the Plaintiffs' motion.FrydM ortgage,LLC,6301CollinsAvenue 1008LLC (tlMiamiBeachLLC''),9000 s.w .63rdcourtLLC (tûpinecrestLLC''),andtheLaGorcePalaceCondominium Association 3j201ofTRIA readsasfollows: Notwithstanding any otherprovisionoflaw,and exceptasprovidedinsubsection(b),inevery caseinwhichapersonhasobtainedajtldgmentagainstaten-oristpartyonaclaim baseduponan actofterrorism,orforwhichaterroristpartyisnotimmuneundersectionl605(a)(7)oftitle28, ' UnitedStatesCode,theblockedassetsofthétterroristparty(includingtheblockedassetsofany agencyorinstrumentalityofthatten-oristparty)shallbesubjecttoexecutionorattachmentinaid ofexecution inordertosatisfysuchjudgmenttotheextentofanycompensatorydamagesfor whichsuchterroristpal-tyhasbeenadjudgedliable. 4The state coul' tcase issetfortrialin M arch 2024. filed responsesoppbsing the Plaintiffssrequestforwrits ofexecution. On M ay 24,2023,theCourtdenied themotion forwritofexecution asto theM iami BeachCondominium andallowed ajtldicialsaletotakeplaçe.Thecondominium associationhad obtained an OFA C licehse to recoveragainstthepropel-ty.The proceeds from the sale ofthe condom inium paid theassociation,andtherem ainingproceedswèredeposited into an OFACblocked interestbearing accountatFirstHorizollBarlk.Plaintiffsmoved foram 'itof garnishm entasto the account,and the Clerk ofCoul' tissued the w ritofgarnishm ent.The M iam i Beach LLC m oved to quash the w ritofgarnishm ent.Thatm otion rem ainspending. The Courtm ustnow decide w hetherPlaintiffs m ake a prim a facie show ing underTIU A 'to obtain a writofexecution as to the Pinecresthom e.There are a few threshold issuespresented itlthebrieis,whichtheCourtmustdecidebeforeevatuatingthePlaihtiffs'prinlafacieshowing underTRIA . 11. LeealStandard FedefalRuleofCivilProcedure69(a)(1)providesthatFloridalaw governstheprocedure onthispost-judgmentexecutionaction,excepttotheextentthatTRIA supplementsorpreempts Florida law .StansellII,771 F.3d at730.Thism eans thatFlorida law providesthe rules of procedure govelming execution,and TRIA providesthe substantive provisionsthatallow for executing on assetsthatOFA C hasblocked. UnderFloridalaw,ajudgmentcreditormaylequesithattheClerk ofCourtisjueawritof ' executiontosatisfyajudgment.j56.021,Fl ,a.Stat.Thejudgmentcreditormayobtain awritof executionagainsttteach personwhoisliableonajudgment,arlorder,oradecreesubjectto execution underthischapterg56oftheFloridaStatutesq. ''j56.0101(4),Fla.Stat.Chapter56, . which goverùsexecutioniflsatisfactionofajudgment,establishesathree-stepprocesswherea judgmentcreditorseekstoexecuteonrealpropel-ty.First,awritofexecutionissues.jj56.031, 56.061,Fla.Stat.Second,the sherifforU .S.M arshallevies on the property,effectively attaching the property so thatthe propel' ty ownercannotreadily transfer ordispose ofitduring the on- goingpost-judgmentproceedings.j56.061,Fla.Stat.Third,theshezifforU.S.M arshal advel-tisesanoticeofsaleforfourconsecutiveweeksbeforesellingtheproperty atasale.j 56.21,Fla.Stat.BecausePlaintiffsseekafederalwritofexecution,28U.S.C.j566provides thatthe U nited States M arshals Service w ould be charged w ith executing the writand notthe localsheriff.BranchBanking & TrustCo.v.Ramsey,559F.App'x 919,923(11th Cir.2014). Although theprocedureforam 'itofexecution isautomatic underFloridalaw,thiscaseis notonewheretheCoul'tissuedaw'ritofexecutionsimplybecausethereisajudgment.The considerations are differentw here,ashere,Plaintiffs seek to recoveragainstrealproperty ow ned by anagentoftheDefendants,whopresumablywasnoton noticeastothejudgmènt.Florida 1aw hasspecificreqttirementsfornoticeandanopportunitytobeheard.j56.21,Fla.Stat. tltW helalevyinguponrealproperty,noticeofsuchlevyandexecutionsaleandaffidavit...shall bemadetothepropel'ty ownerofredordinthesamemannerasnoticeismadetoanyjudgment debtorg.l''l;j56.16,Fla.Stat.(outliningprocedureforthird-party claimantstohaltanexecution salel;j77.0742),Fla.Stat.(permittingddanyotherpersonhaving anownershipinterestin ggarnishedjproperty''tomovetodissolvethem'itwithamotion);StansellI1,771F.3dat725. The Eleventh Circuitheld unequivocally thatCcpartiesw hose assetsare underthreatof executionpttrsuanttoTRIA 5201areentitledtonoticeandanopportunitytobeheardinorder torebutthe allegationsand preservetheirpossessory interestin blocked assets.''StanstllIL 771 F.3dat726(citingDusenhery,534U.S.at167).ltaddedthat(tgwqithoutnoticeandafairhearing w here 170th sides are perm itted to presentevidence,the third party neverhasan opportunity to disputeitsclassification asan agency orinstrum entality.''Id at727.SiDueprocesscontemplates offering aparty an opportunity to rebutchargesleveled againstit,notallow ing thatparty's opponentto presentevidence supporting thatcharge.''1d ' Il. LezalA nalvsis The interested partiesraiseamyriad ofissues,which thisCourtwillexamineto determ ine w hetherto issue a w ritof execution asto the Pinecresthom e.' B efore addressing whetherPlaintiffsmakeasufficizntprimafacieshowingunderTRIA,theCourtmustdecidethe follow ing tlzreshold m atters.First,the Courtwillexam ine whetherthere is a private rightof . action under TRIA to execute on a property thatis blocked by the K ingpin A ct.Second,the Coul' twillexaminewhetherthePinecrestLLC cancollaterally attackthedefaultjudgment,and whethertheCourtlacked subjectmattertoenterthedefaultjudgmentbecauseTazekE1Aissami isim m une from suit.The Courtw illthen evaluate whetheritshould abstain from this case given the pending state cou14 foreclosure action.Finally,the Coul'tw illexam ine w hetherPlaintiffs makeaprimafacieshowingunderTRIA. K ingpin ActBlocked Propert y Originally,TRIA provided arightofaction asto blocked assetsseized ozfrozen undez the Trading with the Enem y A ctorthe IntelmationalEm ergency Econom ic Pow ersA ct. Congress,however,am ended the laws in 2018 to allow fora rightof action againstassetsseized undertheKingpin Act.ThePinecrestLLU,however,arguesthatCongressdid notam end TRIA 'S detinition ofblocked assets,butrather,Congress am ended the federalA nti--l-efrorism ' r Act.TheAnti-Terrorism Actstates:Ssgfjorpurposesofsectlon201of(TRIA)(28U.S.C.ô1610 note),inanyactioninwhichanationaloftheUnitedStateshasobtainedajudgmentagainsta terroristparty pursuantto this section,the term dblocked asset'shallinclude any assetofthat 9 terroristparty(inclndingblockedassetsofany agencyorinstrumentalityofthatparty)seizedot frozen ...undertheForeignNarcoticsKingpinDesignationAct.''18U.S.C.j2333($ (emphasisadded).ThePinecrestLLC argtlesthatthechangetothelaw clarifiesthatonlyUnited ' . Statesnationalswithjudgmentsagainstatenoristpal'tyunderthefederalAnti--ferrorism Act m ay recover againstKingpin A ct-blocked assetsbelonging to ten-oristparties ortheiragents and instrumentalities.Thisisbecauseonly çtnationalsoftheUnitedStatesinjuredinhisorher person,property,orbusinessby reason ofan actofintelmationalterrorism ''have standing to sue underthefederalAnti-Terrorism Act.18U.S.C.j2333($.PlaintiffCarlosM arronistlotaU.S. N ational,buthisw ife and children are.M aria M an'on,and herchildren S.A .and C .R .have obtainedadefaultjudgmentfor$75million dollars,whichfarexceedsthevalueofthePinecrest hom e. l A carefulreading ofthe statute failsto supportthe PinecrestLLC 'Sposition.ln this case, threeU.S.Nationalshaveobtainedajudgment.ThestatutéallowsrecoveryagainstaKingpin A ct-blocked asset(tin any action in which a nationalofthe U nited States hasobtained a judgment.''TheEleventhCircuithasstatedthatttanactionmeansCalawsuit'''andhasrejected the argum entthataction m eans claim s.A n action ttrefersto thew hole case.''Vachon v.Travelers Homed:M arinelns.Co.,20F.4th 1343,1349(11thCir.2021)(concurrencebyPlyor,C.J.and Lagoa,J.).RegardlessofthePinecrèstLLC'Smorelimitedreadingofthestatute,in thiscase, thereareunequivocallytllreeU.S.nationalswith avalidjudgment. B. u vz/bjcc/MatterJurisdiction based onForei gnOfhcialfpkptz/z7/r.p - TotheextentthatthePinecrestLLC arguesthatthefederalAnti-Terrorism Actjudgment w as erroneously entered in favor ofM rs.M arron and herchildren,thatargum entis an im proper collateralattackonthiscoul-t'sdefaultjudgment.sInTRIA executiondisputes,courtshave followed black-letterlaw and recognized thatalleged agencies or instrum entalities lack standing to raise defensesthatthe nam ed defendants could have raised for them selves.See Caballero,562 F.Supp.3d at880(C.D.Cal.2021)(holdingthatagencyorinstrumentalityttlacksstandingto objecttopersonaljurisdictiononbehalfofthenameddefendantsinthegAnti--ferrorism Actj action.'')(citingFarrellv.Burke,449F.3d470,494(2dCir.2006)(tsFederalcoul'tsasageneral ruleallow litigantsto assel'tonly theirown legalrightsand interests,and notthe legalrightsand interestsofthirdparties.'hl).ln Weiningerv.Castro,thecoul-tconcludedthatunderthe circumstances(Cthepoliciesandprinciplesunderlyingresjudicatadoctlinewouldmakeit manifestlyineqtlitableforthisCourttoreopenthejudgmentssoastopermitachallengetothe underlyingadjudication''attherequestofagarnisheeandan' amicuscuriae.462F.Supp.2d457 (S.D.N.Y.2006) ThePinecrestLLC reliesonJerezv.Republicofcuba,775F.3d419,422(D.C.Cir. 2014),whichstatesthataGtdefaultjudgmentrenderedinexcessofacourt'sjurisdictionisvoid.'' A tsdefendantthathasneverappearedisalwaysfree...toassertajurisdictionalattacklater,inthe courtwhereenforcementofthedefaultjudgmentissought,andtohaveitsjtlrisdictional objectionsconsidereddcr/tpvtp.''ld Here,itisnotthedefendant,butratheranagentofthe defendant,thatisseekingtochallenge.thisCourt'sjurisdictioninthefizstplacebyarguingthat theCou14exceededtheboundsofitsjurisdictionbecauseTarekElAissamienjoysimmunity from suitundertheForeign Sovereign Imm unitiesActand thefederalAnti-Terrorism Act.28 U.S.C.j 1330, .18U.S.C.j2337.6 5TheargumentisthatthedefaultjudgmentwaserroneouslyenteredbecauseTarekElAissamiisimmunefrom suit, andtherefore,theCourtlackedsubjectmatlerjurisdictiontoenterajudgmentagainsthim. 6ThePinecrestLLC alsoreliesonFG f' . fc/ndu çp/kcrpAssocs.,LLCv.Republiqued1tCongo,455F.3d575,580-84(5th Cir.2006)todtatethatthegalmisheeswereallowedtoraisetheissueoftheCongo'ssovereignimmunityonappeal. Even iftheCourtwereto follow Jerez,asopposed to Caballero,and allow thepinecrest s LLC tocollaterally attackthedefaultjudgment,theCoul4doesnotfindthatE1Aissamiis imm uneundertheForeign Sovereign Imm unitiesActorthe federalAm i-Terrorism Act.The Foreign SovereignImmunitiesActdoesnotapplytoindividuals.SeeSamanturv.Yousuf 560 U.S.305(2010)(statingthatthecommonlaw,ratherthantheForeignSovereignImmunities Act,governstheimmunity offoreignofficers).Samanturreiteratesthecommon law'stwo-step process to determ ine ifan individualis im m une.The firststep isthatthe Gddiplom atic representative ofthe sovereign could requesta (suggestion of im m unity'from the State Department.''Id at311(citingExPartePeru,318U.S.578,581(1943)).Here,Venezuelahas notrequested im lnunity forElA issam i.SeeBroidy CapitalM gm 'tLLC v.M uzin,12 F.4th 789, 800(D.C.Cir.2021)(denyingimmunity andstatingthatforeign state'ssilenceweighsagainst immunity).Thesecondsteprequirestheforeignofficialtoestablishtlueecriteria.tûFirst,whether the actorisa public m inister,official,or agentofthe foreign state.Second,w hetherthe actsw ere performedinherofficialcapacity.Andthird,whetherexercisingjurisdictionwouldserveto enforcearuleof1aw againsttheforeignstate.''fewisv.M utond,918F.3d 142,146(D.C.Cir. 2019)(citingRestatementg2d ofForeignRelationslj66).Theanalysisofthissecondstepis akin to thatwhich the Coul-tm ustuse to determ ine ilnm unity under the federalA nti-Terrorism In addition to arguing thatthe Foreign Sovereign Im m tlnitiesA ctshields E1A issam ifrom suit,thePinecrestLLC also arguesthe federalAnti-Ten'orism Actprovidesimm unity,which strippedthisCoul'tofjurisdiction.ThefederalAnti--ferrorism Actstatesthataplaintiffcannot sue a foreign state,agency ofa foreign state,or officeror em ployee of a foreign state w orking in lnFG Helnisphere,however,theCongo itselfwasaparty onappeal.A ndtheopinionrefersto thegalmisheesand the Congo asraising thesovereign im m unity issue.Thatcase is differentthan the sim ation presenthere wherethe Defendantshavenotentered an appearanceatall. hisofficialcapacity orundercoloroflaw.18U.S.C.j2337.ThePinecrestLLC contendsthatEl Aissam iisentitledto imm unitybecauseheiss' ued based on hisofficialconductwhileserving as V ice PresidentofV enezuela.Thus,both the second step ofthe com m on law im m unity doctrine andthefederalAnti-Terrorism Actrequire'thisCourtto determ inewhether,in fact,E1Aissami wasa public officialperform ing an actin his officialcapacity.The com plaint,in this case, alleges thata day before PlaintiffM arron'san'est,E1A issam innnounced the arrestof 86 people aspal4 ofOperation PaperHandsin April2018,andthatm any ofthosepeoplewereaftiliated w ith the Plaintiff. Thepartiesdispute whetherE1Aissam iwasindeed working in hisofficialcapacity as VicePresidentwhen hem adetheannouncem ent,such thatsovereign im munity would apply.1t1 thiscontext,itisrelevantthatthe U nited States Ccceased to recognize the governm entofN icolas : M aduro in A ugust2017,''and courts ate Csbound to acceptthe President'sstatem entthatthe 2015 . NationalAssem bly,nottheM aduro governm ent,isthelegitimatepoliticalauthority in Venezuela.''PDVSA US.Litig.Trustv.fukoilPanAmericasLLC,65F.4th556,563(11th Cir. 2023).BecausetheUnitedStatesdidnotrecognizetheM aduroregimeatthetimeofthe Plaintifpskidnapp'ingandatthetimeE1Aissarhiannotmcddthearresto?86people,ElAissami isnotapublicm inister,official,oragentofa forbign stateworking inhisofficialcapacity. Therefore,E1A issam iisnotentitled to im m unity from suitunderthe Foreign Sovereign lm m unitiesA ctorthe A nti--l-errorishlA ct.Knox v.Palestine L iberation Organization,306 F. . Supp.2d424,439-448(S.D.N.Y.2004)(findinjnoimmunitywheretheUnitedStatesdidnot recognizethePalestiniangovernment). In a fihalatlempton thelmmunity point,thePinecrestLLC arguesthatbecausethe United Statesdidnotrecognizethegovernm entofJuan GuaidountilJanuary 23,2019,af4er PlaintiffM anon's kidnapping,thatElA issam iis entitled to im m tmity.W hile itistrue thatthe U nited Statesdid notrecognize the G uaido governm entuntilJanualy 23,2019,ithad stopped recognizingtheM aduroregime(andElAissami)asalegitimategovernmentinApril2017. D uring the interim period,the United States recognized the 2015 N ationalA ssem bly.Therefore, this azgum entalso failsto establish E1Aissam i's im m unity.To rule otllerw ise w ould be tantamounttoproviding(çanincongruousactofjudicialrecognition'ofagovernmentnot recognized by the U nited States.''16l,306 F.Supp.2d at448. B.Abstention D octrine Fqderalcotu-tsenjoy aCûvil' tuallyunflaggingobligation ...toexercisethejurisdiction giventhem.''AmbrosiaCoal(: QConst.Co.v.PagesM orales,368F.3d 1320,1328(11thCir. 2004)(quoting Colo.RiverWaterConservationDist.v.UnitedStates,424U.S.800,818 (1976)).Abstentionisan (sextraordinary andnarrow exceptiontotheduty ofaDistrictCourtto adjudicateacontroversyproperlybeforeit.''Colo.River,424U.S.at813.IntheEleventh Circuit,cbul' tsareguidedbysixfactor:inassessingwhethertoabstain:(t1)whetheroneofthe coul' tshasassumedjurisdiction overproperty;(2)theinconvenienceofthefederalforum;(3)the potentiélforpiecemeallitigation' ,(4)theorderinwhièh' theforaobtainedjurisdiction;(5) whetherstateorfederal1aw willbeapplied;and(6)theadequacyofthestatecourttoprotectthe pal4ies'rights.''AmbrosiaCoal,368F.3dat1331(citingAm.BankersIns.Co.ofFla.v.First Statelns.Co.,891F.2d882,884(1,1thCir.1990)). The PinecrestLLC argues thatby m oviltg to intervene in the foreclosure action relating tothePinecresthome,thePlaintiffshavesubmitledthemselvestothestatecourt'sjurisdiction. The state court,how ever,denied thatm otion to intelwene on A ugust 18,2023.A lthough the Plaintiffsarenotpartiestothestatecourtproceedings,the Coul'tneverthelessweighsthe abstention factors. The partiesdispute how the Courtshould w eigh the factors.A lthough the state coul'thas notissuedadefaultorasulumaryjudgmentorderintheforeclosureproceeding,thePinecrest homeiswithinthejurisdiction ofthestatecourtaction.Thepartiesagreeonthesecondfactor thatthe federalforum is convenientand therefore,w eighs againstabstention.A sto the third factor,the Coul'tis concerned aboutpiecem eallitigation becausethe validity ofFRY D M ol4gage'slien is atissue in both cases.Piecem eallitigation occurs w hen differentcouz' ts adjudicatean identicalissue,duplicatingjudicialeffort,andpossiblyleadingtoconflicting results.Therefore,the piecem eallitigation factorfavors abstention.The tim ing ofthe cases also affectswhethertheCoul'tshould abstain,butit(tshouldnotbemeasuredexclusivelybywhich com plaintwasfiled first,butratherih term s ofhow m uch progress has been m ade in the tw o actions.''M osesH ConeM c/a.Hosp.v.Mercury Constr.Corp.,460U.S.1,21(1983).M/hile thestatecourtaction startedbeforethisaction,thisCoul4already enteredjudgmentinthiscase. Therefore,the Cou14 carm otfind thatsim ply by having been filed first,the state courtaction should takeprecedence.Thisfactôralso cutsagainstabstention.Thefifth factoriswhetherthe Courtwould hve to apply state ozfederallaw .In this case,this factorw eighs againstabstention becausealthough theCourtm ustapply Florida'sexecution procedures,the Courtmustultim ately decide the m eritsunderthe substantive federallaw ofTR IA .The finalfactor,w hetherthe state courtcan adequately protedttheparties'rights,favors the federalfol-tlm asthe Plaintiffs'm otion tointervenewasdeniedbythestatecourt.M oreover,thestatecourtlacksjurisdictiohtogfant thereliefthePlaintiffsseek underTRIA to executeon thisCourt'sdefaultjudgment.Onbalance, the Courtfinds the factorsdo nptfavor abstention. 15 C. Ptainti ffs'PrimaFacieCase Plaintiffs'M otlon forW ritofExecutiôn laysclaim to non-defendantPinecrestLLC'S hom e in South Florida.Plaintiffsprovide evidentiary spppol' tthatthe PinecrestLLC is operated by'sam ark Lopez Bello. Given LopezBello'sassistancetoE1Aissamiand theCarteloftlte Suns,Plaintiffsarguethattheymaysatisfytheirjudgmentfrom LopezBello'spropertiesunderj 201(a)ofTRIA,whichprovidesthesubstantive1aw thatgovernsterrorism victims'effortsto satisfyjudgmentsfrom theblockedpropertiesofDefendantsandtheiragenciesand instrum entalities.Itperm its attaching the blocked propezty notonly ofthe defendant terrorist/judgmentdebtor,butalsothedefendant'sagency orinstrulnentality:CûNotwithstanding anyotherprovisionof1aw ...theblockedassetsofgajterroristparty gagainstwhichajudgment isobtainedj(includingtheblockedassetsofanyagencyorinstrumentality ofthatft drrtp/'g/. plryl shallbesubjecttoexecutionorattachment.''StansellP)45F.4that1346(emphasisadded) (quotingj201(a)ofTRIA,codifiedasanoteto28U.S.C.j1610). TheEleventhCircuitsetouttheelementsrequiredunderj201(a)ofTRIA toexecuteor attach assetsofathirdpal-ty who isalleged to bean agency orinstrumentality ofthattelrorist palty.Ct-f' hemovantmustprovethat(1)heobtailtedajudgmentagainstaterroristpartyfora claim basedonanactoftenorism,(2)thattheamountsoughttobeexecutedorattacheddoesnot exceedthecolnpensatorydamagesawardedtothemovant,(3)thattheassetsofthethirdparty areblocked (asthatterm isdefinedunderTRIAI,and(4)thatthethirdpartyisanagency or instrumentality oftheterroristparty.''StansellK 45F.4that1347(citingStansellll,771F.3dat 723).Forpurposesofthismotion,theCourtmustdetermineifPlaintiffsmakeaprimafacie show ing to establish those elem ents,sufficientto issue the w rit.Prong tw o isnotin dispute as thevalueofthedefaultjudgmentexceedsthevalueofthePinecresthome. Theinterestedpal-ty,thePinecrestLLC,arguesPlaintiffs'primafacl 'eshowingfailsto show thatPlaintiffsobtainedajudgmentagainstaten'oristpal-tyforaclaim basedon anactof terrorism.ltalso arguesthatPlaintiffsfailtomakeapl. imafacieshowingthatLopezBelloisan agentt)rinstrumentality ofE1Aissnmiand/orthe Cartelofthe Suns.FRYD M ortgagearguesthat a w ritOfexecution Should notissue on a property w here there is a m ortgage and itisunclearw ho ow nsthe property. Prong1..Doesthedefault-judgments'îff/3cjcnf/y establishthatitwc'basedon anactofterrorism zfntgrTRIA? Toreiterate,Plaintiffsmustshow thatthey obtainedajudgmentagainstaten'öristparty foraclaim basedon anactofterrorism.Thepartiesdisputewhetherthedefaultjudgmentis basedonanactofterrorism.Theapplicabledefnitionofactofterrorism issetforthin j102of TRIA andthelmmigrationandNationalityAct,8U.S.C.j 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii).SecPub.L.No. 107-297,j201(d),TRJA.An dsactoftenorism''underthelmmigrationandNationalityAct, includes any kidnapping to ttcom pela third person ...to do or abstain from doing any actas an explicitorimplicitconditionforthereleaseoftheindividualseizedordetained.''See8U.S.C.j 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii)(11).ThekidnappingofM arronandtheactsofextol-tionagainsthiswifeare actsofterrorism underthisdefinition.ThePinecrestLLC arguesthatthey arenotactsof terrorism becausetheImm igratioh and Nationality Act'sdefinition requiresthe seizurebedone to ficom pela third person''to act.The LLC takes the position thatseizure and detention to com pelthatsam e individualto actdoesnotqualify.Thatm ight'be true,butin thiscase,the act ofkidnappingCarlosM arronwasusedtoextorthiswife,whoobtainedajudgmentunderthe federalA nti-Terrorism A ct.The seizure F as used to Sscom pela third person''to actas stated in theImmigration andN ationality Act. M oreover,an actofterrorism ,also includes conspiracy to engage in kidnapping.See 8 U.S.C.j 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii)(V1)(CCA threat,attempt,orconspiracytodoany Oftheforegoing.'). The Complaintallegesthatm embersoftheM aduro crim inalenterprise,which includesEl Aissam iand the Cartelofthe Suns,conspired and agreed to com m itactsofterrorism designed to intim idate the V enezuelan civilian population,including kidnapping,torture,and arbitrary detention,disappearances,and m urder.The Com plaintalso allegesthatElA issam ialm ounced that86individuals(somewithcormectionstoPlaintiftlwouldbearrestedfordisseminatingfalse inform ation.ltadds thatthe çsoperation w as centered on CarlosEduardo M an' on,ow ner ofthe websiteDolarPro.''Complaint,ECF 1at!(152. To rebutthisargum entthatthe conspiracy issufficientto tind an actofterrorism ,the PinecrestLLC arguesthatthisfederalAnti-fenorism Actdefaultjudgmentwasnotbasedon a conspiracy to kidnap and therefore,cannotbe the basis ofa claim underTR IA .The Im m igration and N ationality Actalso defines çsactofterrorism ''to include the use ofchem icalw eaponsfor thecommissionofaterroristactivity.8U.S.C.j 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii)(VI).ThePlaintiffs'theol-yin thiscase,which isembodiedinthedefaultjudgment,isthatE1Aissami,theFARC,andthe Cal'telofthe Suns financially supported the M aduro regim e w ith narcotrafficking proceeds, w hich enabled M arron's kidnapping.The U nited States governm enthaslabeled narcotrafficking ' asnarcoterrorism .7AndthereisnoquestionthatthefederalAhti-Telmorism Actdefaultjudgment w asbased on narcoterrol-ism ,w hich isan actthatisharm fulto hum an life.See also Pub.L.l07- 297,j 102,TRIA.Accordingly,theCoul' tfindsthePlaintiffssufficientlymeettheirbtlrdento show thejudgmentisbased onan actöften-orism. M oreover,TRIA does notrequire courtsto re-exam ine the m erits ofthe claim ,butm erely statesthatPlaintiffsmustshow theyobtainedajudgmentagainstaterroristpartybasedonanact 7SeeOrderGrantingMotionfol.Dc/cl//fJudgment,EC#44at6(tsDefendantsalsoengageinnarcoterrorism in Florida.''), 'Complaint,ECF lat!77(quotingU.S.AttorneyGeoffreyS.Benman)(C1Asalleged,Maduroandthe otherdefendantsexpressly intendedtofloodtheUnited Statesw ith cocaineinordertounderm inethe11ea1th and wellbeingofournation.Madurovely deliberatelydeployedcocaineasaweapon.''). 18 ofterrorism.StansellK 45F.4that1347 (citingStansellII,771F.3dat723).Plaintiffshave sufticientlymadeaprimafacieshowingthattheyobtainedajudgmentagainstE1Aissamiand the Cartelofthe Stm s based on an actofterrorism . N ext,the PinecrestLLC contestswhetherPlaintiffs m eetthe other statutory requirem ents to obtain a m 'itofexecution asto the Pinecresthom e,w hich includesw hetherTarek E1A issam i is a ten'oristand w hetherthe Cartelofthe Sunsisa ten'oristorganization,and w hetherSam ark Lopez Bello istheiragentand instrum entality. Prong 1. 'AreElAissamiandtheCartelofthe&/n. çterrorists? The nextissue isw hetherPlaintiffscan establish thatTarek ElA issam iand the Ca/elof theSun aretsten'oristparties.''18U.S.C.j2333($ only allowscollectionofblockedassetsfrom . agenciesorinstrumentalitiesofCdtenoristparties''(ortheterroristpal4iesthemselves).TRIA definesSsten-oristparty''aseitherailten-orist,atenoristorganization(asdefinedin...8U.S.C.j 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi));oraforeign statedesignatedasastatesponsoroften-orism l.j''Pub.L.107- 297, .116 Stat.2322,j201(d)(4),TRIA. TRIA does notdefine the term çltela-orist''and as such,the Courtm ustgive theterm its plain m eaning.Blaclt'sLaw D ictionaly defines terroristas oize w h0 Gsuses violence such as bom bing,shooting,orkidnapping in an attem ptto intim idate ...especially asa m eans of achievingapoliticalend.''(11thed.2019).ThisisexactlythetypeofactdescribedintheCourt's defaultjudgment. M orespecifically,theCourt'sdefaultjudgmentfoundtheDefendants,includingE1 A issam i,orchestrated the kidnapping and tot-ture ofCarlosM arron to punish him and deter others from speaking outagainstthe M aduro regim e and to extortm oney from hisw ife and fam ily.The U nited States indicted E1A issam iforconspiracy to evade sahctions im posed by the United States.M oreover,OFA C designated ElA issam ias a Specially Designated N arcotics Traffickerpursuantto the K ingpin A ctforplaying a significantrole in internationalnarcotics trafficking.TheOFAC designationisentitledtodeference.àtansellv.RevolutionalyArmed Forcesofcolombia (FARC),No.8:09-2308--1--26M M 7,2013W L 12203820,*4 (M .D.Fla. April19,2013)(StansellJzr f)(citingDeCuelarv.Brady,881F.2d 1561,1565(11th Cir.1989) ($(ThedecisionofOFAC isentitledtogreatdeference,andshouldbereversedonlyifarbitrary andcapricious.''l). M aking a tem poralargum ent,the PinecrestLLC assertsthatTarek ElA issam iisnota terroristunderTRIA because there al re no allegationsthathe engaged in any terroristactivity as ofthedatesofthedefaultjudgmentandPlaintiffs'firstattempttoexecuteunderTRIA.The Eleventh CircuitexpresslyrejectedthisreadingofTRIA.StansellJzr,45F.4that1350.There, Lopez Bello raised the exactsam e argum entthatthe w ord Ssshall''indicates presenttense.But (Ccontral-y to the assel-tion ofthe Lopez appellants,the w ord çshall'doesnotnecessarily connote thepresenttense...Second,inastatutelike5201(a)oftheTRIA,thewozd Gshall'is.usedinits usual(m andatory'legalsense.''1d.at 1351.StansellF thusprecludesthe PinecrestLLC 'S argum entthatthe w ord çtshall''requires Plaintiffs to m ake allegationsthatE1A issam iengaged in ten-oristactivityasofthedateofthedefaultjudgmentandasofthedatePlaintiffstiledtheir motionforwritofexecutionunderTRIA.1d.at1350(ûçW econclude,basedonStansellIh that themagistratejudgeandthedistrictcoul' tcorrectlyrejectedthecontentionthatathirdpal' ty must be an agency orinstrum entality ofa terroristparty atthe tim e thatexecution or attachm entis soughtundertheTR1A.''). HavingfoundthatPlaintiffsmakeaprimafacieshowingthatElAissamisatisfiesthe definition ôfterrorist,theCoul'tneednotexam inewhetherthèCartelofthe Sunsalsom eetsthe definition ofa ten-oristorganization.The Courtreservesruling on theCartel'sstatusasaterrorist orgalnization shouldthattindingultimately beanecessary ohe. Prong 3. .IsthePinecrestH ome OFAc-blocked? Blocking dçcan bedefinitively established by thefactthatOFAC hastaken action against theallegedagencyorinstrumentalityundergtheTradingwiththeEnemyActorthelqternational EmergencyEconomicPowersActj.''StansellIL 771F.3dat726.CongressamendedtheTRIA to allow execution by victim s on assets blocked pursuantto the K ingpin A ct.See Stansell Pr ,45 F.4th at 1347 n.2.ln this case,OFA C'SFebruary 2017 designation ofLopez Bello as a Specially D esignated N arcotics Trafficker establishesthe blocking ofhisassetsw ithin the United States. The issue here isw hetherthe Pinecresthom e ow ned by an LLC isblocked. A n agency orinstrum entality need nothold the property exclusively in its nam e orin any pal-ticularfbrm :on thecontral' y,OFAC'Sdesignation ofpersonsorentitiesasaSpecially Designated N arcotics Traffickers'blocksnotonly property in theirnam e butalso any property belonging to entitiesthatthey ow n.Any property ow ned by a cozporate entity in which the agent ownsatleast50% issubjecttobloèking.See86Fed.Reg.26661-01,2021W L 1946627(M ay 17,2021)(CCOFAC isamendingthedefinitionofspeciallydesignatednarcoticstrafticker...to clarifythatthesetermsincludeentitiesdirectlyorinàirectlyowned50pezcentormoreby oneor morespeciallydesignatednarcoticstraffickers,whetherindividually orintheaggregate.''). Thefefore,thatthe Pinecrelthom e is owned by an LLC doesnot,in and ofitself,renderit beyond the reach ofthese execution proceedings. O n Februal'y 13,2017,O FA C designated E1A issam iand Lopez B ello as Specially D esignated N arcotics Traffickersunderthe K ingpin A ctforplaying a significantrole in internationalnarcoticstraffcking.SeePl.M ot.forWritofExecution,D.E.47-6(archived contentfrom theU.S.DepartmentofTreasuly).TheagencyconcludedthatLopezBelloisaCçkey frontm an''forE1Aissamiand (shandlesbusinessarrangem entsand financialmattersforE1 A issam i,generating significantprofitsas a resultofillegalactivity benefiting ElA issam i.''1d. OFA C also designated various com panies ow ned orcontrolled by Lopez Bello,including som e registeredinFlorida.Theagencystated:(Glajsaresultoftoday'saction,significantrealpropel'ty and otherassetsin theM iami,Floridaareatied toLopezBellohavebeen blocked.''1d. ThequestioniswhetherthePinecresthomeownedby thePineerestLLC issubjecttothe OFAC-block.Fl'yd M ortgageand thePinecrestLLC argueitisnotblocked becausethePinecrest LLC is noton the OFA C listand the property w asgifted to M aria Lopez,Lopez B ello'sdaughter in 2016. The PinecrestH om e Thedetermination ofwhetherthePinecresthomeissubjecttotheOFAC-b1ockisa factualone.The relevantinquiry underthe K ingpin ActiswhetherLopez Bello ow ned or controlled theproperty.ThemortgagoronthePinçcresthom eand theplaintiffin thestatecoul' t foreclosureaction,FRYD Mortgage,arguesthatthePinecrestpropertyisnotsubjecttotheblock becausetheproperty doesnotappearon theOFAC listand Lopez Bello gifted itto hisdaughter M ariaLopez.Plaintiffsprovideevidentiary supportto refuteFRYD 'Sclaim thattheproperty is tlnblocked. First,Plaintiffs cite to a statem entby Lopez Bello stating thathe (Gow ned and controlled'' 100% ofthePinecrestLLC.Decl.ofWilliam C.M arquardt,ECF47-27atExh.W at24.That Exhibitisthe D eclaration ofW illiam C .M arquardt,Lopez Bello's forensic accountant,where he attaches a listofLopez B ello'sdisclosed entities,which includes the PinecrestLLC. N ext,Plaintiffsprovide an affidavitfiled in state coul' tby the PinecrestLLC 'Scounsel affirmingthatthe(lpurchaseofthe(Pinecrestjpropertywasfunded by SamarkLopezBello''and thatsinceLopezBello'sOFAC designation,Slthegpinecrestjpzopertyhasbeenincludedinal1of theblockedpropertyreportsfiledwithOFAC.''AfhdavitoflorgeSalcedo,ECF 62-2 atExh.B at9,!7. Third,Plaintiffs supporttheirposition thatthe property is blocked by providing a verified intenogatory response from the PinecrestLLC,w hich statesthe propel-ty is blocked and the VillageofPinecrestprovidesbasiclandscapingpursuanttoan OFAC license.Depo.ofM aria Lopez,ECF 47-30 atExh.Z at17.ThattheVillage ofPinecresthasthe licenseisevidencethat the property isblocked because OFA C w ould notissue a license foran unblocked property.Pls. Reply toFRYD M ortgageResp.,ECF 62-2 (explainingthatan OFAC licenseisan authorization toengageinatransactionwithrespecttoblockedpropertythatwouldotherwisebeprohibited). Finally,Plaintiffs pointto the deposition testim ony ofM aria Lopez indicating thatthe housewasblockedby OFAC.Depo.ofM ariaLopez,ECF47-30.FRYD reliesonapoi-tionof herdeposition where M s.Lopez statesthatthe Pinecresthom e wasa giftfrom herfather.H e allow ed herto live there rentfree while she attended college.Plaintiffs argue thistestim ony is insufficientto show thatshe hascontrolofthe propel'ty,such thatthe K ingpin A ctdoesnot apply.There was nevera transfer ofthe Pinecresthom e from Lopez B ello to hisdaughter,w hich wouldhaverequiredcompliancewith j689.01,Fla.Stat.(specifyinghow tolegallytransferreal propel' tyinFlorida). FRYD M ol-tgage attem ptsto discreditthisevidepce by arguing thatby serving asthe ' m anagerofthe PinecrestLLC M aria Lopez had control.Generally,a m anagerofan LLC isa person w ho,underthe operating agreem entofa m anager-m anaged lim ited liability com pany,is responsible forperform ing m anagem entf'unctions.v bi eegenerally, jj605. 0407(3),605.04073(2), Fla.Stat.Even though shewaslisted asthePinecrestLLC m anager,M aria Lopeztestifiedthat shedidnotfiletaxes,anddidnotltnow whofiledtaxesonbehalfofthecorporation.Depo.of M aria Lopez,ECF 47-30 atExh.Z at10.Shealso did notltnow ifthePinecrestLLC had abar. t k accotlnt.Id She said thatherfatherpaid forw ork to the house and forthe realestate taxes.1d.at 11-12.Finally,M s.Lopeztestifiedthatbecausethepropel'ty wasOFA c-blocked,shehad not m onitored the propel-ty since 2017.I6l at 13.H ertestim ony belies any contention thatshe controlled the PinecrestLLC and the hom e, Finally,FRY D argues thatthe PinecrestLLC isn0tlisted as a blocked entity on OFA C 'S listasownedbyLopezBello.UnderOFAC'S50% Rule,onceOFAC designatesaperson (here, LopezBello),allpropel-ty ofthatperson anda11propel-tyofanentityinwhichtheSpecially DesignatedNarcoticsTraffickerOwnsOrcontrolsatleasta 50% interestautom atically becomes blockedtlndertheKingpinActregulations.See31C.F.R.j598.314(c)($GThetelmlspecially designated narcotics trafficker m eans ...entities owned in the aggregate,directly orindirectly, 50percentormorebyoneormorespbciallydesignatednarcoticstraffickers.'').Thiscommonsense rule prevents a blocked person from avoiding the reach ofOFA C sanctions tljrough the sim ple actofputting the propel' ty in the nam e ofan LLC,in w hich the specially designated narcotics trafficker ow ns a m aterialinterest.Thus,the factthatthe Pinecresthom e istitled in PinecrestLLC 'S nam e is insufficientto allow this Courtto find the hom e isunblocked.Even though thePinecrestLLC'Snam e is notlisted on the blocked list,the creditor,FR YD M ol-tgage here,hasCtconstructivenotide''asofthedateoftlieOFAC designation.See Versilia Stl pply Serv. SRL v.M/Y WAKV 371F.Supp.3d 1143,1147(S.D.Fla.2019)(((TheKingpinActand RegulationsprecludeCtransfers'afterCthedateonwhich actualorconstructivenoticeof(thatl designationisreceived.''). Perhaps,the m osttelling evidence thatthe Pinecresthom e isindeed blocked by OFA C is the PinecrestLLC 'S response to the Plaintiff's m otion.ln thatresponse,the PinecrestLLC concedestheproperty isblockedlày OFAC undertheKingpinAct. Giventhisevidence,theCotlrtfindsthatPlaintiffhasmadeaprimafacieshowingto meetprong 3 ofTRIA thatthePinecresthomeisblocked.Because the Courtisallowing the interestedpartiesanopportunitytopresentevidencetorebutthePlaintiffs'primafacieshowing, theCourtreservesrulingonthevalidityofFRYD V ol-tgage'sclaim totheproperty.TheCourt, however,willnotethattheevidencethatthepropél-ty isbloiked isstrong,and FRYD lacked an ssue them ol-tgage and to file thr foreclosure OFAC license,w hich FRYD w ould have needed to i , action.See31C.F.R.j598.301(thefederalregulation implementingtheKingpin Actprovides that(tpayments,transfers,exportations,witlzdrawalsorotherdealings(withrespecttoblocked property)may notbemadeoreffectedexceptpursuanttoalicenseorotherauthorizationfrom OFAC expresslyauthorizingsuchaction.''l;Stansellv.Revolutionaly ArmedForcesof Ctpftppkbjtz,No.09-2308--1--36AA5,2019W L 2537791,at*4(M .D.Fla.June20,2019) (explainingthatanon--f' ltlA creditèrwithoutanOFAC licensecannotexecuteonblocked property).M oreover,theCoul'tisconcernedthatFRYD M ol-tgagelacksalawfulclaim tothe property becausethem ortgageisfraudulent.Thism ol'tgagewasoneprocured by the crim inal defendantsin U SLv.Castaneda,No.20-CR-20155,ECF 154,155(S.D.Fla.Aug.11,2021), w here the crim inaldefendantw ho obtained the m ortgage had no legalrightto encum berthe Pinecresthome.SeeBranchBanking(f Tr.Co.ofva.V M/YBEOWULF,BNo.11-80692-CIV, 2012 W L 464002,at*5(S.D.Fla.Feb.13,2012)(explainingthatamortgagormusthavelegal title to the property atthe tim e ofthe m ortgage execution to passa valid security interest(jn to themol' tgagee).In thiscase,thecriminaldefendantKatherineHansenM endozaadmittedto im personating M aria Lopez to fraudulently obtain a m ol-tgage from FRY D M ortgage on the Pinecresthom e.The districtcoul'taccepted H ansen M endoza'sguilty plea. Forthese reasons,the Coul' tfindsthatthepresenceofamortgage on thisproperty is insufficienttorebutthePlaintiffs'prilnafacieshowingunderTRIA thatSamarkLopezBello owned the Pinecresthom e.? Prong 4..ls Lopez Bello an agentor instrttm entality under TRIA ? Stansell11approved an analysisto determineifsomecme.isan agentOrinstrumentality ef a terrorist.The Eleventh Circuithasclarified the m eaning ofan agency or instrum entality,stating thatthe definition incltldes any pal'ty thatprovidesm aterialsupportto a terroristpal-ty,w hether financial,teclmological,ortheprovision ofgoodsand sezvices.SeeStansellJZk45 F.4th at1357 (quotingStansellIL 771F.3dat724,n.6).A thirdpartywhoprovidesmatefialsuppol'ttoa terroristatanypointin tim e constitutes an agency orinstrum entality,even ifthey purportedly stopped aiding theten' orist.Id at1350. The Eleventh Circuitendorsed a broad definition ofagency,w hich includes any party thatprovidesmaterialsupporttoaterroristparty,whetherfinancial(e.g.moneylaundering), teclmological,ortheprovisionofgoodsorservices.Seeïtf (quotingStansellIL 771F.3dat724 n 6).InStansellF,theEleventhCircuitclarifiedthatûtinstru' mentality''appliesevenmore broadly than (Cagency''andcoversanyperson whoprovidesmeansto accomplish an end,even if thatpezson w as çsunaware ofthe terroristparty ozparties involved.''161 at 1354.ltstated that even ttunw itting cogsin a crim inalschem e constitute instrum entalities.''1d.at 1354. ThePinecrestLLC arguesthatSçltjhereisnoallegationthatMr.LopezBelloknew about, m uch lessparticipated in any w ay,in the conductalleged by M r.M arron,M rs.M arron,ortheir children.''The legalstandard foragency and instrum entality doesnotrequire directparticipation 8TheCourtalso notesthatthereisaquestion,even ifFRY D M ortgagecould show avalid claim ,whetheritwould havepriorityoveraTRIA Plaintiff.SeeStansellVL2013W L 12203820,at*5(çç-l' heordersissuingwritsand,in somecases,theserviceorlevydateofthewritsgoverntheorderofpriorityamongterrorism victim judgment holders.N ootherpm-ties,claim ants,propel-ty owners,or(innocent'beneficiarieshaverightsgreaterthanthe ten-orism victim judgmentholdersandtheserighstarenotconsideredintheTRIA statlitoryscheme.''). in theactsdelineated in Plaintiffs'complaint.An indireçtrelétionship issuffcientto establish J statusasan agentorinstl'umentality'. 's/cnlel/v.RevolutionalyArmedForcesofcolombia,M isc. ActionNo.10-471-(TJK),2019W L 4040680,at*5(D.D.C.Aug.26,2019). ln thiscase,OFA C has determ ined thatLopez Bello isa frontm an forE1A issam i.H e aided E1A issam iby laundeling m oney.Lopez Bello attem pted unsuccessfully to challenge his O FA C designation as a Specially D esignated N arcoticsTrafficker.The D istrictofColum bia districtcou14rejectedLopezBello'sarguments,findingsufticientevidentiary supportfor OFAC'Sdesignation ofLopezBello asthefrontm an forE1Ajssam i.fopezBello v.Smith,21-cv- 1727-1V W ,2022W L 17830226(D.D.C.Dec.21,2022).ThedistrictcourtinfopezBello concluded thatOFAC conducted amulti-yearinvestigation andultim ately concluded thatE1 A issam iconducted a m assive drug trafficking operation betw'een Venezuela and the United States.Lopez Bello w as ttin charge oflaundering drug proceeds and organizing the airand maritimecocaineroutesg.j''ld at*7. In a separate case,Judge Scola held thatLopez Bell0 w as an agentorinstrum entality of FARC.Stansellv.FARC,No.19-cv-20896,ECF22(i.D.Fla.Feb.15,2019).JudgeScola issued them 'itsofexecution based on theevidential'y supportprovided bytheplaintiffs.The ' Eleventh Circuitaftirm ed Judge Scola'sruling finding thatitprovided adequate dueprocess because Lopez Bello could contestthe agency and instrum entality finding afterthe writs of execution issued.Stansell111,802 F.A pp'x at449. AlthoughPlaintiffsrely ontheOFAC designationandcaselaw toarguethatresjudicata barsrelitigation ofLopez Bello's role asan agentor instrum entality,the Coul-tm ustadhere to the Eleventh Circuit's guidance thatdue process allowsaLopez Bello,a non-party to thiscase, noticeeand an opportunity to presentevidence thathe isnotan agentorinstrum entality ofTarek E1Aissami.TheOFAC designation,inandofitself,isinsuffidienttotriggerresjudicataasthat casewasnotin thecontextpresenthere.And Stansell1IIm erely found hewasan agentand instrum entality ofFA RC,notE1A issam iorthe Cartelofthe SunsasPlaintiffs contend in this Case. The PinecrestLLC also arguesthatthe Suprem e Court's potentialnanow ing or overturning ofChevron foreclosesthis Courtfrom affording appropriate deference to OFA C 'S factualdeterm ination thatLopezBello selevesasa tûkey frontm an''forE1Aissam i.Chevron deference,however,applies to an agency'sconstruction of a statute itadm inisters,and n0tthe agency'sfacttlalfindings.Chevron,US.A.,lnc.v.NaturalRes.Def Council,467U.S.837,842 (1984), .accorcj e.g.,Arevalov.US.Atty-Gen.,872F.3d 1l84,1187-88(11thCir.2017) (explainihgthatChevronprovidesaframework forjudicialreview Gswhen acourtieviewsan agendy'sconstructionofthestatutewhichitadministers.'l.gAccordingly,theCourtfindsthat the potentialnarrowing ofChevron would notnecessarily translate into a lack ofdeference foran OFA C decision as to Lopez Bello's status as a frontm an forE1A issam i. Inthecontextofthisprimafacieshowing,theCourtwillgivedeferenceto OFAC'S agency and instrum entality designation.Based on Stansell111,the Courthas authority to issue the writofexecuticm as to the Pinecresthom e and allow Lopez Bello to contestthe agency or instnlm entality designation beförethesaleoftheproperty. D.ShouldtheC/z/r/issueawrj/(f attachmentinsteadofawritofexecution? The pallies dispute whetherthe Plaintiffs im properly seek a w ritofexecution,and w hetherthe proper vehicle is a writofattachm ent.A (Cwritofattachm ent(servesas a lien upon property,whichmaybethesubjectofexecutionuponalater-obtainedjudgment.'''VMIEntm 't, 9 ln the upcom ing term ,the Suprem e Courtwillconsiderwhetherto narrow oroverturn Chevron in LoperBl. ight Enters.v.Raimondo,143S.Ct.2429(2023)(grantingcertiorariinpal 4ontheChevronissue). 28 ffC v.Westwoodplaza,LLC,No.1D13-5111,152So.3d 617,618(F1a.1stDCA 2014) (quoting Cernav.SwissBankCorp.,503So.2d 1297,1298(Fla.3dDCA 1987)).Becausethere isalreadyadefaultjudgmentinthiscase,theCoul' , tfindsissuanceofawritofexecution appropriate,w ith the c' aveatthatperthe Plaintiffs'representation, they shallnotlevy the w rit untilafterafinaladjudicationofthemerits. Therefore,theCoul'thasjttrisdiction overthematterand findsPlaintiffshavemettheir burdentoestablish aprimafacieunderTRIA entitlingthem torelief.TheCoul'treserves jurisdiction tofurtheranalyzethelegalandfactualchallengesshouldthePinecrestLLC or FRYD M ortgage m ove to quash the w ritofexecution. D ON E AN D OR DER ED in Cham bers at M iam i, Florida,this of Septem ber 2023. F A .M ORE O UN ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies furnished to: CounselofRecord
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
