UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO: 21-23103-CV-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES

CASA EXPRESS CORP. as Trustee of

CASA EXPRESS TRUST, 

Judgment Creditor, 

v. 

BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF

VENEZUELA,

 Judgment Debtor. 

______________________________________/ 

CASA EXPRESS CORP. as Trustee of

CASA EXPRESS TRUST, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RAUL GORRIN BELISARIO, et al.,

Impleaded Defendants.

______________________________________/ 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE: D.E. 128 

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Impleaded Defendant Raul Gorrin Belisario’s 

(“Gorrin”) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Service or Personal Jurisdiction or Alternatively Motion 

to Quash Service (hereafter, “Motion to Dismiss or to Quash”) [D.E. 128]. This matter was 

referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 by the Honorable Beth Bloom, United 

States District Judge [D.E. 148]. The undersigned held a hearing on this matter on March 6, 2023 

[D.E. 172]. 

Impleaded Defendants RIM Group Investments Corp., RIM Group Investments I Corp., 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2023 Page 1 of 13
2 

RIM Group Investments II Corp., RIM Group Investments III Corp., Posh 8 Dynamic Inc., and 

Planet 2 Reaching Inc. (hereafter, “Respondent Entities”) joined in Gorrin’s personal jurisdiction 

challenge [D.E. 128 at 1]. Four of the Respondent Entities, namely, RIM Group Investments 

Corp., RIM Group Investments I Corp., RIM Group Investments II Corp., and RIM Group 

Investments III Corp. have withdrawn their personal jurisdiction challenges [D.E. 165 at 8]. For 

judicial efficiency, the undersigned addresses the pending personal jurisdiction defenses asserted 

by the other two Respondent Entities (Posh 8 Dynamic Inc. and Planet 2 Reaching Inc.) in the 

context of Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Casa Express Corp. as Trustee of Casa Express Trust’s 

(“Casa Express”) Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses [D.E. 154]. Thus, the undersigned limits 

this Report and Recommendation to Gorrin. 

Having fully considered the parties’ arguments and the pertinent portions of the record, the 

undersigned respectfully recommends that Gorrin’s Motion to Dismiss or to Quash be GRANTED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Casa Express commenced this action on August 27, 2021, by registering an Amended Final 

Judgment issued by the Southern District of New York against Judgment Debtor Bolivarian 

Republic of Venezuela (“Judgment Debtor” or “Venezuela”) [D.E. 1]. On September 10, 2021, 

Casa Express filed its Ex Parte Expedited Motion to Commence Proceedings Supplementary, to 

Implead Defendants, and for Issuance of Statutory Notices to Appear (“Motion for Proceedings 

Supplementary”), invoking Rule 69(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (hereafter, “Rule 

69(a)”) and Fla. Stat. § 56.29 [D.E. 3].1

1 Rule 69(a) provides, in pertinent part: “A money judgment is enforced by a writ of execution, unless the 

court directs otherwise. The procedure on execution—and in proceedings supplementary to and in aid of 

judgment or execution—must accord with the procedure of the state where the court is located, but a federal 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2023 Page 2 of 13
3 

Casa Express’ Motion for Proceedings Supplementary was granted on September 14, 2021 

[D.E. 4]. Thereafter, the Court issued Statutory Notices to Appear directed at Gorrin [D.E. 15] 

and to the Respondent Entities [D.E. 8–13]. The Statutory Notices advised Gorrin and the 

Respondent Entities that Casa Express seeks to satisfy the Amended Final Judgment in these 

proceedings supplementary, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 56.29, by executing on the following properties 

variously titled in the Respondent Entities’ names: 144 Isla Dorada Boulevard, Coral Gables, 

Florida 33143; 4100 Salzedo Street, Unit 1010, Coral Gables, Florida 33146; 4100 Salzedo Street, 

Unit 608, Coral Gables, Florida 33146; 4100 Salzedo Street, Unit 807, Coral Gables, Florida 

33146; 4100 Salzedo Street, Unit 813, Coral Gables, Florida 33146; 4100 Salzedo Street, Unit 

913, Coral Gables, Florida 33146; 18555 Collins Avenue, Unit 4401, Sunny Isles Beach, Florida 

33160; and 7043 Fisher Island Dr., Unit 7043, Fisher Island, Florida 33109 (together, the 

“Properties”) [D.E. 8–13, 15]. Casa Express alleges that these eight Properties 

were purchased by Gorrin (through shell entities) with misappropriated Venezuelan 

funds that he obtained through an illicit and corrupt foreign currency exchange 

scheme. Since misappropriated Venezuelan funds were used to acquire the real 

properties, the properties are subject to a constructive trust in favor of Venezuela, 

and . . . are subject to execution by Casa Express pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1610(c) 

and Florida Statute § 56.29. 

See Motion for Proceedings Supplementary [D.E. 3 at 2]. As more fully discussed below, Casa 

Express relies on the report of its retained expert, Nelson Luis (“Mr. Luis”), to link the Properties 

to the Respondent Entities and the misappropriated Venezuelan funds. See Luis Expert Report 

[D.E. 3-11, 60-14].2

statute governs to the extent it applies.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a). Thus, Fla. Stat. § 56.29 governs these 

proceedings supplementary. 

2 Summons have also been issued and served on Venezuela as the Judgment Debtor via diplomatic channels; 

and a Clerk’s Default has been entered against it [D.E. 38–41, 112]. A Clerk’s Default has also been entered 

against Impleaded Defendants Alejandro Andrade Cedeno (“Andrade”) and Claudia Patricia Diaz Guillen 

(“Diaz”) [D.E. 113, 153]. Casa Express has now moved for the entry of final default judgment against 

Venezuela, Andrade, and Diaz [D.E. 149, 179]. 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2023 Page 3 of 13
4 

On June 7, 2022, Casa Express filed a Motion to Amend its Motion for Proceedings 

Supplementary by interlineation to, inter alia, add jurisdictional allegations with respect to Gorrin

in order to effectuate substitute service on him via the Florida Secretary of State, pursuant to Fla. 

Stat. § 48.181 (hereafter, “Motion to Amend”) [D.E. 42]. On September 2, 2022, the undersigned 

granted Casa Express’ Motion to Amend [D.E. 59] and, that same day, Casa Express filed its 

Amended Motion for Proceedings Supplementary [D.E. 60]. On September 7, 2022, the Court 

granted Casa Express’ Amended Motion for Proceedings Supplementary [D.E. 62] and issued 

Statutory Notices to Appear directed at the Respondent Entities [D.E. 63–69, 71]. On September 

8, 2022, the Court issued an Amended Statutory Notice to Appear directed at Gorrin [D.E. 76]. 

On December 22, 2022, Casa Express filed a return of service of the Amended Statutory Notice to 

Appear and other papers on Gorrin by way of substitute service made on the Florida Secretary of 

State on December 16, 2022 [D.E. 114].3

On December 27, 2022, Gorrin and the Respondent Entities moved for an extension of 

time, until January 13, 2023, to respond to the Amended Motion for Proceedings Supplementary 

and the Statutory Notices to Appear [D.E. 116], which request was granted [D.E. 117].4

 A further 

seven-day extension was later granted, making the response date January 20, 2023 [D.E. 120, 121].

On January 19, 2023, Casa Express filed a Declaration of Compliance with Fla. Stat. §

48.181 signed by its counsel, Andres Gamardo (hereafter, “Gamardo Declaration”), in support of 

the reported substitute service on Gorrin [D.E. 124]. Gamardo avers that, on December 12, 2022, 

Casa Express attempted service on Gorrin at his last known address, 144 Isla Dorada Boulevard, 

Coral Gables, Florida 33143, which is one of the Properties; and that, on December 16, 2022, the 

Florida Secretary of State accepted service on behalf of Gorrin. See Gamardo Declaration [D.E. 

3

 The Court did not require Casa Express to re-serve the Respondent Entities [D.E. 105 at 6]. 

4

 Gorrin reserved the right to challenge the adequacy of service of process [D.E. 116 at 2 n.1]. 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2023 Page 4 of 13
5 

124 ¶¶ 20, 21]. Gamardo also avers that Casa Express mailed a copy of the process to Gorrin at 

the Isla Dorada address via certified mail and to his business address in Venezuela, where he 

purportedly works in person several days a week, relying on Gorrin’s earlier and successful Motion 

to Vacate Clerk’s Default [D.E. 101 at 13]. Id. ¶ 22. Finally, Gamardo states that he believes that 

Casa Express made a diligent effort to effectuate service of process on Gorrin. Id. ¶ 24. 

On January 20, 2023, Gorrin and the Respondent Entities filed their Affidavit in Response 

to the Notices to Appear and Memorandum in Opposition to the Amended Motion for Proceedings 

Supplementary (hereafter, “Affidavit” and “Memorandum”) [D.E. 127, 130 (same)]. The 

Affidavit is in the form of a Declaration by Gorrin under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 (hereafter, “Gorrin 

Declaration”) [D.E. 127-2, 128-3, 129 (same)].5

Also on January 20, 2023, Gorrin filed the instant Motion to Dismiss or to Quash [D.E. 

128]. Gorrin argues that Casa Express’ impleader action against him should be dismissed for 

improper service or that service should be quashed because Florida’s substitute service law is 

inapplicable; and, even if applicable, Casa Express failed to comply with its statutory 

requirements. With regard to federal methods of service, Gorrin argues that Casa Express failed 

to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1) (hereafter, “Rule 4(f)(1)”) because it did not serve him under 

the Hague Convention, to which both the United States and Venezuela are signatories;6 and that 

5

 Casa Express has moved to strike part of the Gorrin Declaration, pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement 

doctrine, given Gorrin’s designation by the Department of Homeland Security as a most-wanted fugitive 

from prosecution in a pending criminal case against him in this jurisdiction, U.S. v. Gorrin Belisario, S.D. 

Fla. No. 18-cr-80160-WPD (hereafter, “Case 18-cr-80160”). See Casa Express’ Motion to Strike [D.E. 

155]. Specifically, Casa Express seeks to strike paragraph 3 of the Gorrin Declaration, wherein Gorrin 

denies the criminal allegations and criminal charges against him, as set forth in the Superseding Indictment 

against him at D.E. 44 in Case 18-cr-80160. Id. at 2–3. The undersigned addresses Casa Express’ Motion 

to Strike by separate order and, for purposes of this Report and Recommendation, disregards the objected 

to portion of the Gorrin Declaration.

6

 Gorrin does not invoke Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(2), which governs service in the absence of an international 

agreement. See Motion to Dismiss or to Quash [D.E. 128 at 10].

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2023 Page 5 of 13
6 

service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) (hereafter, “Rule 4(f)(3)”) is not available to Casa 

Express absent court approval, but that such approval is generally declined if the Hague 

Convention applies absent specific justifications that are not present here.7 Finally, Gorrin argues 

that Casa Express fails to adequately allege personal jurisdiction over him in its Amended Motion 

for Proceedings Supplementary. 

Casa Express initially challenges Gorrin’s Motion to Dismiss or to Quash as untimely and 

improper. Casa Express further contends that Florida substitute service on Gorrin was effective 

notwithstanding its non-compliance with the provisions for foreign service under the Hague 

Convention pursuant to Rule 4(f)(1). Alternatively, Gorrin seeks leave of court to serve Gorrin 

under the Hague Convention via email pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3). Finally, Casa Express contends 

that the Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Gorrin. 

As more fully discussed below, the undersigned concludes that substitute service on Gorrin 

was improper and should be quashed, in that it bypassed even an attempt to serve Gorrin under the 

Hague Convention. The undersigned further concludes that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction 

over Gorrin in these proceedings supplementary. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that 

the Motion to Dismiss or to Quash be granted without prejudice to give Casa Express another 

opportunity to serve Gorrin and to allege sufficient facts to support the Court’s assertion of specific 

personal jurisdiction over him. 

7

 Gorrin also argues that service of process on him is null and void by operation of the Office of Foreign 

Assets Control (“OFAC”) regulations regarding “blocked” properties. Casa Express acknowledges that the 

Properties are blocked and that it does not have an OFAC license. See Response to Motion to Dismiss or 

to Quash (hereafter, “Response”) [D.E. 159 at 12]. However, the undersigned does not find Gorrin’s

argument dispositive at this juncture, given that the pertinent OFAC regulations only prohibit, absent an 

OFAC license, “any judicial process purporting to transfer or otherwise alter or affect property or interests 

in property” that is blocked, 31 C.F.R. § 591.407, and that Casa Express has proffered correspondence from 

OFAC indicating that this “litigation would not appear to require a license from OFAC” [D.E. 50-2 at 2]. 

 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2023 Page 6 of 13
7 

THRESHOLD ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE TIMELINESS AND PROPRIETY

OF GORRIN’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO QUASH

Casa Express argues that, as a threshold matter, Gorrin’s Motion to Dismiss or to Quash 

should be denied because he filed the Affidavit and Memorandum as an initial responsive pleading 

[D.E. 127] ahead of the Motion to Dismiss or to Quash [D.E. 128]. According to Casa Express, 

this resulted in a waiver of the service of process and personal jurisdiction defenses presented in 

the Motion to Dismiss or to Quash pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

(hereafter, “Rule 12(b)”), which provides that “[a] motion asserting any of these defenses must be 

made before pleading if a responsive pleading is allowed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). However, Gorrin

did challenge the assertion of personal jurisdiction over him explicitly in the Affidavit and 

Memorandum, arguing that: “The Court Lacks Personal Jurisdiction Over Respondents for Failure 

of Service on Gorrin and Lack of Connexity” [D.E. 127 at 15]. Moreover, the foregoing statement 

in the Affidavit and Memorandum also references service of process on Gorrin and he goes on to 

challenge the adequacy of Casa Express’ substitute service on him under Florida law in light of

the Hague Convention requirements. Id. at 15–16. 

Casa Express also argues that the Motion to Dismiss or to Quash is an inappropriate vehicle 

in these proceedings supplementary, given that the Court has granted it leave to commence them. 

However, “an order allowing impleader of third parties under [Fla. Stat.] section 56.29 does no 

more than allow third parties to be sued, and does not determine any substantive rights.” NTS Fort 

Lauderdale Off. Joint Venture v. Serchay, 710 So. 2d 1027, 1028 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

Thus, the undersigned finds no merit in Casa Express’ threshold arguments and proceeds 

to address the challenges to service of process and personal jurisdiction in Gorrin’s Motion to 

Dismiss or to Quash. 

 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2023 Page 7 of 13
8 

SERVICE OF PROCESS ON GORRIN

As previously noted, Casa Express has filed the Gamardo Declaration in support of its 

reported substitute service on Gorrin, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 48.181. Gorrin challenges this 

statement of compliance with respect to the diligence and technical requirements of Florida’s 

substitute service statute. Gorrin further argues that, even if these objections are overruled, 

substitute service on Gorrin under Florida law was improper due to Casa Express’ admitted failure 

to even attempt service under the Hague Convention. 

With regard to Fla. Stat. § 48.181’s diligence requirement, as documented in the Gamardo 

Declaration, Casa Express: attempted personal service on Gorrin at his last known address in 

Florida; and mailed copies of the process to Gorrin at that address and at his business address in 

Venezuela, where he claims to work in person several days a week. Given these efforts, and in 

light of Gorrin’s status as a most-wanted fugitive, the undersigned finds that Casa Express has 

exercised the due diligence required under Florida’s substitute service statute.

Gorrin also argues that Casa Express’ Declaration of Compliance with Fla. Stat. § 48.181 

is untimely under Fla. Stat. § 48.161(1), and incomplete. With regard to timeliness, Casa Express’ 

Declaration of Compliance with Fla. Stat. § 48.181 was filed on January 19, 2023, which was one 

day prior to the January 20, 2023, extended deadline for Gorrin to file his Affidavit and 

Memorandum. Thus, Casa Express complied with Fla. Stat. § 48.161(1)’s requirement that the 

declaration of compliance must be filed “before the return day of the process or within such time 

as the court allows”. Fla. Stat. § 48.161(1). With regard to completeness, Casa Express did attach 

a certified mail receipt, documenting the mailing of copies of the process to Gorrin at the Isla 

Dorada address. Therefore, the undersigned finds no merit in Gorrin’s technical non-compliance 

arguments with respect to Florida substitute service. 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2023 Page 8 of 13
9 

Gorrin more substantively argues that the proper method of service on him would be under 

the Hague Convention pursuant to Rule 4(f)(1), given that the United States and Venezuela are 

both signatories to the Hague Convention.

8

 Casa Express counters that service pursuant to the

Hague Convention is unavailable because the Venezuelan government that is recognized by the 

United States has not designated a central authority to process service requests. Casa Express 

further argues that compelling it “to attempt service with the officials appointed by [current 

Venezuelan President] Nicolas Maduro’s illegitimate regime would violate the political question 

doctrine by second-guessing the executive’s decision to derecognize a foreign government.” See

Response [D.E. 159 at 5]. Specifically, Casa Express contends that:

The only possible avenue to effect process under the Hague Convention is through 

purported officials of Maduro’s illegitimate regime. The Court cannot compel 

Plaintiff to effect service of process through the officials of the illegitimate regime 

without impliedly affirming their authority to represent and act on behalf of 

Venezuela. Such a decision would violate the political question doctrine and the 

separation of powers prescribed by the U.S. Constitution. 

Id. at 7. Casa Express further argues that, even if compelled to procure service of process on 

Gorrin, such efforts would be futile because it “has been unable to find a single instance where the 

illegitimate Central Authority provided a certificate of service within the last three years.” Id. at 

8 (citing various cases where parties sought leave to effectuate alternate service after waiting 

several months for a response from the Central Authority). 

However, Casa Express’ invocation of the political question doctrine vis-à-vis Venezuela’s 

Central Authority and its claims of futility do not excuse its failure to have at least attempted

service on Gorrin through the Hague Convention. See Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Europe 

8

 Rule 4(f)(1) provides that an individual may be served outside the United States “by any internationally 

agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to give notice, such as those authorized by the Hague 

Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents”. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1). 

 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2023 Page 9 of 13
10 

v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 23 F.4th 1036, 1041–42 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (rejecting the 

concept that Venezuela’s Central Authority is the Venezuelan State and concluding that “claims 

of inconvenience do not affect how the courts are required by Supreme Court precedent to interpret 

the [Hague] Convention”). Therefore, the undersigned concludes that Casa Express must have, at 

a minimum, attempted service on Gorrin under the Hague Convention. Because Casa Express has 

bypassed service under the Hague Convention, its alternative request to serve Gorrin via email 

pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3), which provides for foreign service “by other means not prohibited by 

international agreement, as the court orders”, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3), is premature. Int’l Designs 

Corp., LLC v. Qingdao SeaForest Hair Prods. Co., Ltd., No. 17-60431-CIV-MORENO, 2018 WL 

2364297, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2018) (declining to authorize alternate service pursuant to Rule 

4(f)(3) due to the absence of a reasonable prior attempt to effectuate service under the Hague 

Convention). 

Thus, the undersigned recommends that Casa Express be afforded an opportunity to 

effectuate service on Gorrin under the Hague Convention, pursuant to Rule 4(f)(1); and, if such 

efforts are unsuccessful after a reasonable period, to seek leave to serve him via email pursuant to 

Rule 4(f)(3). 

PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER GORRIN

Casa Express alleges in its Amended Motion for Proceedings Supplementary that “Gorrin 

operated, conducted, engaged in, or carried on a business or venture in Florida.” See Amended 

Motion for Proceedings Supplementary [D.E. 60 ¶ 34]. Casa Express further alleges that “Gorrin 

(through shell entities) rented the [Properties] that were purchased with misappropriated 

Venezuelan funds to generate monthly cashflow and listed them for sale at higher prices than 

acquired for the purpose of realizing a profit.” Id. According to Casa Express, Gorrin thereby 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2023 Page 10 of 13
11 

“commit[ed] a tortious act within the state (i.e. wrongful participation in a breach of trust)”. See

Response [D.E. 159 at 13]. Casa Express contends that its allegations satisfy the requirements for 

assertion of specific personal jurisdiction over Gorrin under two prongs of the Florida long-arm 

statute, namely: 

1. Operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business or business 

venture in this state or having an office or agency in this state. 

2. Committing a tortious act within this state.

Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a)(1)–(2).

With regard to the first prong, Casa Express has made the allegation that “Gorrin operated, 

conducted, engaged in, or carried on a business or venture in Florida,” see Amended Motion for 

Proceedings Supplementary [D.E. 60 ¶ 34], in a conclusory fashion and without any factual support

to connect him with the real estate activities of the Respondent Entities. Such “vague and 

conclusory allegations” do not satisfy Casa Express’ initial pleading burden. Catalyst Pharms., 

Inc. v. Fullerton, 748 F. App’x 944, 946 (11th Cir. 2018). Moreover, the Luis Expert Report, upon 

which Casa Express relies, only proffers the opinion that the Respondent Entities “that are owned 

or controlled by Gorrin continue to hold the title to [the Properties].” See Luis Expert Report [D.E. 

60-14 ¶ 26]. Finally, Casa Express argues that a screenshot from public record listings proves that 

Gorrin conducted business in Florida. See Response [D.E. 159 at 13]. However, the referenced 

screenshot is simply a download from the website Zillow showing real estate activity for the 

Properties [D.E. 60-1]. Thus, Casa Express has not met its burden of alleging or presenting 

“sufficient facts to make out a prima facie case” of specific personal jurisdiction over Gorrin based 

on conducting business in Florida. 

In any event, under either prong of the Florida long-arm statute, the assertion of specific 

personal jurisdiction “requires a connection or ‘connexity’ between the enumerated activity in 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2023 Page 11 of 13
12 

Florida and the cause of action.” Knepfle v. J-Tech Corp., 48 F.4th 1282, 1292 (11th Cir. 2022). 

Casa Express relies on the following opinion in the Luis Expert Report to establish this connexity: 

Based on information presented by OFAC, starting in 2008, Gorrin was involved 

in a corrupt foreign currency exchange scheme, where the proceeds of such scheme 

were invested in real estate, among other assets; Gorrin and others used a network 

of corporate entities to obfuscate the beneficial ownership of such real estate or 

other assets; and such corporate entities used by Gorrin and others include the 

[Respondent] Entities. Relying on OFAC’s findings, such properties were acquired 

using misappropriated Venezuelan funds. 

See Luis Expert Report [D.E. 60-14 ¶ 27]. However, while the referenced OFAC information lists 

the Respondent Entities, it makes no specific mention of the Properties. See OFAC Press Release, 

Exhibit A to Luis Expert Report [D.E. 60-14 at 16–21]. Mr. Luis attempts to close this loop by 

noting the inclusion of the Properties in the forfeiture section of the indictment in U.S. v. Gorrin 

Belisario, S.D. Fla. No. 18-cr-80160-WPD. See Luis Expert Report [D.E. 60-14 ¶ 25]. However, 

as acknowledged by Mr. Luis, the Properties are only listed as “substitute property under the 

provisions of Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p)”. See Superseding Indictment [Case 

No. 18-cr-80160, D.E. 44 at 18–19]. This provision allows the government to “seize any other 

property of the defendant, up to the value of the tainted property—rather than the tainted property 

itself.” Honeycutt v. United States, 581 U.S. 443, 452 (2017) (citing 21 U.S.C. § 853(p)(2)) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, a necessary link in the chain between the Properties and 

the alleged use of Venezuelan misappropriated funds to purchase them remains open. Hence, even 

assuming the imputation of the Respondent Entities’ activities in Florida to Gorrin, Casa Express 

has failed to satisfy the connexity requirement between the alleged activities in Florida and its 

claim for the imposition of a constructive trust upon the Properties. Knepfle, 48 F.4th at 1292. 

Accordingly, Casa Express’ allegations are insufficient to support the Court’s assertion of specific 

personal jurisdiction over Gorrin. 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2023 Page 12 of 13
13 

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing considerations, the undersigned respectfully recommends that 

Gorrin’s Motion to Dismiss or to Quash be GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that Casa 

Express be afforded an opportunity to re-serve Gorrin and to allege sufficient facts to support the 

assertion of personal jurisdiction over him. 

Pursuant to Local Magistrate Judge Rule 4(b), the parties have fourteen days from the date 

of this Report and Recommendation to file written objections, if any, with the Honorable Beth 

Bloom, United States District Judge. Failure to file timely objections may bar the parties from 

attacking the factual findings contained herein on appeal. See Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Hallmark 

Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993). Further, “failure to object in accordance 

with the provisions of [28 U.S.C.] § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district 

court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.” See 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (I.O.P. 

- 3). 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this 18th day of April, 

2023. 

____________________________________ 

ALICIA M. OTAZO-REYES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cc: United States District Judge Beth Bloom 

Counsel of Record 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2023 Page 13 of 13