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. 224]. On October 20, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for a Final Turnover Judgment as to Blocked PDVSA1 Funds (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 207]. No response or objection to the Motion has been filed by Defendants or any non-party.2 On October 22, 2024, the Court referred the Motion to Judge Torres for a ruling. [ECF No. 214]. On November 5, 2024, Judge Torres issued his Report recommending that the Court grant Plaintiffs’ Motion. [ECF No. 224]. 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).

1 Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (“PDVSA”). 2 M&T Bank Corporation filed an Answer to the Writ of Garnishment. [ECF No. 176]. 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. 224], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED, and incorporated into this Order by reference; 2. Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Final Turnover Judgment as to Blocked PDVSA Funds, [ECF No. 207], is GRANTED; and 3. M&T Bank Corporation shall turnover to Plaintiffs the Blocked Funds, in the amount of $7,677,084.39 held by M&T Bank Corporation in the name of PDVSA and its wholly owned subsidiary (the PDVSA Pension Fund) and certificate holders (APJ International, APJ PDV, and Fondo Prev Trab PDVSA), less the $5,000.00 in administrative expenses that M&T Bank Corporation 1s entitled to withhold for the parties’ agreement, for a total turnover amount of $7,672,084.39 (plus any accrued interest from the date on which the funds were blocked to the date of disbursement). DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 14th day of November, 2024.

| ) » 4 / D P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DISIRACT JUDGE