UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 21-cv-23103-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

CASA EXPRESS CORP, as Trustee

of Casa Express Trust,

Judgement Creditor, 

v. 

BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA, 

 Judgment Debtor. 

________________________________________/ 

 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Impleaded Defendants Collins Apt. 4401, LLC 

and Fisher Isl. 7043, LLC’s (collectively, “Caballero Entities”) Motion to Vacate Order Granting 

Ex Parte Emergency Motion to Implead Third Parties, and Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 

12(b)(6), ECF No. [158] (“Motion”). All post-judgment matters, including the instant Motion, 

were referred to United States Magistrate Judge Alicia Otazo-Reyes. ECF No. [148]. On April 18, 

2023, Judge Otazo-Reyes issued a Report and Recommendation, ECF No. [182] (“R&R”) 

recommending that the Motion be stayed in the interest of judicial economy pending further 

proceedings in Antonio Caballero v. FARC, et al., Case No. 18-CV-25337-KMM (S.D. Fla.). See 

id. at 5. The R&R advised the parties that objections to the R&R must be filed within fourteen (14) 

days of the R&R. Id. Casa Express Corp (“Casa”) thereafter timely filed Objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s R&R, ECF No. [192] (“Objections”). The Caballero Entities did not respond 

to Casa’s Objections. For the reasons that follow, the Objections are overruled and the R&R is 

adopted. 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 202 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2023 Page 1 of 5
Case No. 21-cv-23103-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

2

I. BACKGROUND

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

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

Republic of Venezuela (“Venezuela”). ECF No. [1]. Casa thereafter filed its Ex Parte Expedited 

Motion to Commence Proceedings Supplementary, to Implead Defendants, and for Issuance of 

Statutory Notices to Appear, ECF No. [3]. On June 7, 2022, Casa filed its First Motion to Amend, 

ECF No. [42], that was granted by Judge Otazo-Reyes, see ECF No. [59]. Casa thereafter filed its 

Amended Ex Parte Expedited Motion to Commence Proceedings Supplementary, ECF No. [60],

on September 2, 2022. 

On January 19, 2023, Casa filed its Ex Parte Emergency Motion to Implead Third Parties 

Fisher Isl. 7043, LLC and Collins Apt. 440, LLC, arguing that the Caballero Entities took title to 

the Fisher Island Property1 and the Collins Avenue Property2 subject to the outcome of this 

supplementary proceeding. ECF No. [122]. The Court granted the Ex Parte Emergency Motion 

and issued statutory notices to appear. ECF No. [126].

On February 13, 2023, the Caballero Entities filed the instant Motion. ECF No. [158]. Casa

filed a Response in Opposition, ECF No. [167], to which the Caballero Entities filed a Reply, ECF 

No. [170]. The case was referred to Judge Otazo-Reyes for all post-judgment matters. ECF No. 

[148]. On April 18, 2023, Judge Otazo-Reyes issued a R&R on the instant Motion, ECF No. [182], 

in which she recommended the Motion be stayed pending further proceedings in Antonio 

Caballero v. FARC, et al. Casa timely filed Objections, in which it argues that “[t]he R&R fails to 

1 “The Fisher Island Property” refers to the real property located at 7043 Fisher Island Dr., Unit

7043, Fisher Island, Florida.

2 “The Collins Avenue Property” refers to the property located at 18555 Collins Avenue, Unit

4401, Sunny lsles Beach, Florida 33160.

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 202 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2023 Page 2 of 5
Case No. 21-cv-23103-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

3

address the arguments that were properly submitted for the Court’s consideration” and “Plaintiff 

respectfully disagrees that staying adjudication of the [M]otion would serve judicial efficiency.”

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party 

must file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings 

and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. 

Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 

(11th Cir. 1989)) (alterations omitted). The objections must also present “supporting legal 

authority.” S.D. Fla. L. Mag. J.R. 4(b). The portions of the report and recommendation to which 

an objection is made are reviewed de novo only 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). If a party fails to object to any portion of the magistrate judge’s 

report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784 (quoting Johnson 

v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999)); see also Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. 

WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001). “It is improper for 

an objecting party to . . . submit [ ] papers to a district court which are nothing more than a 

rehashing of the same arguments and positions taken in the original papers submitted to the 

Magistrate Judge. Clearly, parties are not to be afforded a ‘second bite at the apple’ when they file 

objections to an R & R.” Marlite, Inc. v. Eckenrod, No. 10-23641-CIV, 2012 WL 3614212, at *2 

(S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2012) (quoting Camardo v. Gen. Motors Hourly-Rate Emps. Pension Plan, 

806 F. Supp. 380, 382 (W.D.N.Y. 1992)). A district court may accept, reject, or modify a 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 202 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2023 Page 3 of 5
Case No. 21-cv-23103-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

4

III. DISCUSSION

Judge Otazo-Reyes correctly noted that in Antonio Caballero v. FARC, et al., the sale of 

the Collins Avenue Property and the Fisher Island Property to the Caballero Entities is being 

challenged and “[a] jury trial ‘on the issue of agency and instrumentality determination’ has been 

set for August 28, 2023.” ECF No. [182] at 5 (quoting Antonio Caballero v. FARC, et al., Case 

No. 18-CV-25337 at ECF No. [216].) The R&R explains that should the trier of fact find that the 

interested parties in that case are not agents or instrumentalities of FARC, the sale of the Collins 

Avenue Property and Fisher Island Property to the Caballero Entities will be set aside and the 

Caballero Entities will no longer be proper Impleaded Defendants in this case. Id. Judge OtazoReyes therefore recommended that the instant Motion be stayed pending further proceedings in 

Antonio Caballero v. FARC, et al. 

Casa objected, arguing that “[i]f the Caballero Entities prevail in trial, then the parties 

would have to re-litigate the same issues that have already been fully briefed and argued before 

the Court.” Casa therefore argues that judicial economy weighs in favor of considering the merits 

of the Motion at this time. However, the parties will not need to file new briefs. The Court will 

simply consider the fully briefed issues if the Caballero entities do prevail at trial. It is at that point

in time when a ruling on the Motion would be appropriate and not mooted by the outcome of other 

pending litigation. Moreover, judicial economy would favor an adjudication of the instant Motion 

on its merits. A district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power 

to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). Here, a stay is appropriate.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. [182], is ADOPTED. 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 202 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2023 Page 4 of 5
Case No. 21-cv-23103-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

5 

2. Casa’s Objections, ECF No. [192], are OVERRULED. 

3. The Caballero Entities Motion to Vacate Order Granting Ex Parte Emergency Motion 

to Implead Third Parties, and Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), ECF No. 

[158], is STAYED pending further proceedings in Antonio Caballero v. FARC, et al.,

Case No. 18-CV-25337.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on May 30, 2023. 

 

 BETH BLOOM 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: 

Counsel of Record

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 202 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2023 Page 5 of 5