Alban Osio v. Maduro Moros

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 Turnover Judgment as to Blocked Funds (the “Report”). [ECF No. 121]. On June 18, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for a Final Turnover Judgment as to the Blocked Funds of Instituto Nacional de Aeronáutica Civil (“INAC”) (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 112]. Defendants did not file a response to the Motion. On July 12, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Supplement to the Motion certifying that Plaintiffs conferred with Garnishee Italbank International, Inc. (“Italbank”), a third-party holder of the INAC funds, and that the Motion was served upon Italbank. [ECF No. 120]. On July 11, 2024, the Court referred the Motion to Judge Torres for a ruling. [ECF No. 118]. On July 17, 2024, Judge Torres issued his Report recommending that the Court grant Plaintiffs’ Motion. [ECF No. 121]. Plaintiffs then filed a certificate of service showing that the Report was served upon Italbank. [ECF No. 123]. No objections to the Report were filed. 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). This Court finds no clear error with Judge Torres’ well-reasoned analysis and agrees that the Motion should be granted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’ Report and Recommendation on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Turnover Judgment as to Blocked Funds, [ECF No. 121], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED, and incorporated into this Order by reference; 2. Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Final Turnover Judgment as to the Blocked Funds of INAC, [ECF No. 112], is GRANTED; and 3. Italbank shall disburse to Plaintiffs’ counsel the blocked INAC funds that Italbank holds, 1.e., the $7,623,461.17 (plus accrued interest beginning from May 7, 2024 to the date of the disbursement) within seven (7) days of this Order. Italbank shall be deemed released and absolved from any liability relating to the disbursement; and 4. This Order does not apply to the funds that Italbank ostensibly holds (according to Plaintiffs) in the form of a CD in the name of Instituto Aeropuerto Nacional de Maiquetia. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 27th day of July, 2024.

| DARRIN P. GAYLE UNITED STATES fe JUD