Alban Osio v. Maduro Moros

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: July 1, 2024
• Docket: 1:21-cv-20706
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:21-cv-20706-GAYLES/TORRES

MEUDY ALBAN OSIO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NICOLAS MADURO MOROS, et al.,

Defendants. ______________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’ Report and Recommendation on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Writ of Execution (the “Report”). [ECF No. 110]. On January 5, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for a Writ of Execution (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 94]. Defendants did not file a response to the Motion. On January 5, 2024, the Court referred the Motion to Judge Torres for a ruling. [ECF No. 96]. On June 10, 2024, Judge Torres issued his Report recommending that the Court grant Plaintiffs’ Motion. [ECF No. 110]. Plaintiffs then filed a Limited Objection regarding an apparent clerical error in the stated amount of compensatory damages in the Report. [ECF No. 111]. Defendants did not file any objections. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objections are made are accorded de novo review, 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). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objections are made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). The Court has reviewed the record de novo and agrees with Plaintiffs that the correct amount of compensatory damages awarded in this action is $216 million. This Court finds no clear error with the remainder of Judge Torres’ well-reasoned analysis and agrees that the Motion should be granted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Plaintiffs’ Limited Objection to One Narrow Facet of the Report and Recommendation (ECF 110) on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Writ of Execution, [ECF No. 111], is SUSTAINED; 2. Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’ Report and Recommendation on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Writ of Execution, [ECF No. 110], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED, in full, and incorporated into this Order by reference, with a correction on page six of the Report that the amount of compensatory damages is $65 million; 3. Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Writ of Execution, [ECF No. 94], is GRANTED; and 4. The Clerk shall issue a writ of execution upon the Learjet 45 (Tail Number YV2739) in accordance with Plaintiffs’ proposed writ of execution, [ECF No. 94- 2]. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 1st f July, 2024.

3 | f 4 / DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DISTRACT JUDGE