1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 1:20-cv-23278-MGC

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7505 AND 7171 

FOREST LANE, DALLAS, TEXAS 75230 et al.,

Defendant.

________________________________________________/

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 1:20-cv-23279-MGC

ALL RIGHT TO AND INTEREST IN PNC CORPORATE 

PLAZA HOLDINGS LLC HELD, CONTROLLED, OR

ACQUIRED, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY OPTIMA 

CBD INVESTMENTS LLC AND/OR CBD 500 LLC, et al.,

Defendant.

________________________________________________/

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 1:20-cv-25313-MGC

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 55 PUBLIC SQUARE,

CLEVELAND, OHIO, et al.

Defendant.

________________________________________________/

NOTICE OF FILING OF DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT

The Court set a hearing on three sets of motions for May 10, 2021: 

1. The government’s motion to stay all three civil forfeiture actions (20-23278 ECF 46);

Case 1:20-cv-23278-MGC Document 72 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2021 Page 1 of 4
2

2. Claimants’1 four separate motions to compel arbitration of two actions, the 

CompuCom action (20-23278 ECF 36, 37) and the 55 Public Square action (20-25313 

ECF 26, 27); and

3. Claimants’ motions to vacate two separate restraining orders, related to the 

CompuCom action (20-23278 ECF 15) and the PNC Plaza action (20-23279 ECF 22).

Given the number of motions, the various relief requested, the voluminous and 

overlapping briefing, and the complexity of the issues, the United States respectfully provides 

this brief summary and accompanying demonstrative to aid the Court’s consideration.

1. The Court should stay these actions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(g).

The threshold question is whether the Court should be addressing any of this material 

now. The simplest path forward, and one amply supported by statutory and decisional 

authority, is to stay these actions pursuant to Section 981(g)(1). A stay under Section 981(g) 

is unlike a stay requested under the Court’s inherent authority; the statute is specifically 

designed to pause civil forfeiture proceedings when the government makes a showing that the 

proceedings will adversely affect an ongoing criminal investigation—the court “shall stay” 

such a case. 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(1). If the Court does so, it need not consider any of the other 

pending motions, though it may consider the motions regarding the restraining orders. A stay 

is not contrary to what Claimants themselves are requesting—in the CompuCom (23278) and 

55 Public Square (25313) actions, Claimants have requested a stay pending arbitration as an 

alternative form of relief.

2. Rule G prohibits consideration of the motions to compel and dismiss at this time.

If these actions are not stayed, the first step—mandated explicitly by Supplemental 

Rule G(6)—is determining the standing of any claimants that have filed motions to dismiss. 

To that end, the United States has complied with Supplemental Rule G(6) and served special 

interrogatories on Claimants in each of these actions. The second step is for the putative 

Claimants to respond, and, if appropriate, for the United States to move to strike claims as 

appropriate based on their responses (or lack thereof). During that process, Rule G prohibits 

any decision on motions to dismiss (which in this case includes the motions to compel 

1 The term “Claimants” here encompasses the putative claimants in these actions, including the

“Individual Claimants,” Mordechai Korf and Uriel Laber, as well as the “Optima Claimants,” which include 

Optima Ventures LLC, Optima CBD Investments LLC, Optima 7171 LLC, CBD 500 LLC, and Optima 55 

Public Square LLC.

Case 1:20-cv-23278-MGC Document 72 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2021 Page 2 of 4
3

arbitration). See Rule G(6)(c) (“The government need not respond to a claimant's motion to 

dismiss the action under Rule G(8)(b) until 21 days after the claimant has answered the[] 

[special] interrogatories.”); Rule G(8)(c)(ii)(A) (motions to strike “must be decided before any 

motion by the claimant to dismiss the action”).

3. If, nevertheless, the Court reaches the motions to compel, it should deny them.

Only after that process is completed does Rule G allow consideration of motions to 

dismiss. If the Court considers the motions to compel arbitration now—which would be 

contrary to the clear terms of Rule G and the stay provision of Section 981—it should deny 

them. There is no basis to compel arbitration: the civil enforcement actions are not committed 

by the Treaty to arbitration, and an arbitral panel is not empowered, and is completely 

unequipped, to decide the disposition of the defendants in rem. To the extent Claimants have 

valid claims under the Treaty, they are entirely separate from the claims and relief sought in

these actions.

4. The Court should uphold the restraining orders.

The Court need not consider the motions to vacate the restraining orders if it stays the 

actions, but to the extend it does, it should uphold them. The restraints are a proper exercise 

of the Court’s authority under 18 U.S.C. § 983(j), because they prevent Claimants from 

dissipating the defendant assets—something Claimants have vowed to do if they are released. 

Section 983(j) expressly permits these restraints, and they are congruous with 18 U.S.C. 

§ 985’s limitations on the seizure of real property. Neither restraint was a seizure, and to the 

extent PNC Plaza (23279) was ever related to real property, that property has been sold, and 

so Section 985 no longer applies. Moreover, the CompuCom campus is under contract for 

sale, which will soon alleviate any concerns related to Section 985. Claimants are not entitled 

to use funds subject to forfeiture to pay their legal bills or anything else.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: May 6, 2021 DEBORAH CONNOR, CHIEF

MONEY LAUNDERING & ASSET 

RECOVERY SECTION

By: /s/ Shai D. Bronshtein

Shai D. Bronshtein (ID No. A5502665)

Rachel E. Goldstein

Case 1:20-cv-23278-MGC Document 72 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2021 Page 3 of 4
4

Trial Attorneys

Criminal Division

United States Department of Justice 

1400 New York Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20005

Telephone: (202) 616-5950

Shai.Bronshtein@usdoj.gov

JUAN ANTONIO GONZALEZ

ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ Adrienne E. Rosen

Adrienne E. Rosen (ID No. A5502297)

Marx P. Calderón (ID No. A5502700)

Assistant United States Attorney

US Attorney’s Office

99 Northeast Fourth Street, 7th Floor

Miami, Florida 33132

Telephone: (305) 961-9338

Adrienne.Rosen@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America

Case 1:20-cv-23278-MGC Document 72 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2021 Page 4 of 4