UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 21-cv-23103-BB

CASA EXPRESS CORP, as Trustee of

CASA EXPRESS TRUST,

Judgment Creditor,

vs.

BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF 

VENEZUELA,

Judgment Debtor.

_____________________________________/

RESPONDENTS’1 OBJECTION TO [D.E. 181] REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION ON [D.E. 154] PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

STRIKE IMPLEADED DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AS TO RESPONDENTS’ EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ONLY

Plaintiff, Casa Express Corp. (“Casa”), has obtained a judgment against Venezuela in the 

Southern District of New York as a result of unpaid Venezuelan bonds. That case is completely 

unrelated to the Respondents or their real property in Florida. Casa does not allege any cause of 

action directly against any of the Respondents or their eight targeted real properties. Instead, Casa 

claims that the Venezuelan government was harmed years ago from alleged manipulation of its 

foreign currency exchange contracts, and that Respondents benefitted from the manipulation in 

Venezuela. Thus, Casa purports to stand in the shoes of its litigation adversary and judgment 

debtor—the Republic of Venezuela—and endeavors to prosecute a constructive trust on behalf of 

Venezuela against Respondents’ Florida realty.

1 The Respondents are Raul Gorrin, RIM Group Investments Corp., RIM Group Investments I 

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

and Planet 2 Reaching Inc. (“Respondents”)

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 189 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2023 Page 1 of 3
In opposition to Casa’s Expedited Motion to Commence Proceedings Supplementary, 

(D.E. 60), invoking Florida Statute Section 56.29, Respondents raised the affirmative defense that 

Casa has failed to satisfy the requirements under the statute of obtaining a writ of execution and 

filing an affidavit attesting that the writ is unsatisfied (“Eighth Affirmative Defense”). D.E. 127 at 

16. In considering Casa’s Motion to Strike Respondents’ Affirmative Defenses, (D.E. 154),

Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes recommends as follows:

Casa Express further argues that Respondents’ Eighth Affirmative Defense, 

alleging that Casa Express failed to satisfy the requirements to commence a 

supplementary proceeding, is “redundant, legally insufficient, and patently 

frivolous.” See Motion to Strike [D.E. 154 at 5–6]. Although Respondents maintain 

that Casa Express was required to obtain a writ of execution and file an affidavit 

attesting that the writ is unsatisfied in compliance with Fla. Stat. § 56.29(1) and

prevailing case law, see Response [D.E. 165 at 10], Casa Express notes that the 

statute, as amended, no longer requires a writ of execution. See Motion to Strike 

[D.E. 154 at 5]. Moreover, Casa Express argues that in granting its Motions for 

Proceedings Supplementary [D.E. 3, 60], the Court “expressly ruled” that Casa 

Express was “in compliance with the statutory prerequisites prescribed by Fla. Stat. 

§ 56.29(1).” Id. (citing Order [D.E. 62 ¶ 1]); see also Order [D.E. 4 at 3] (“Casa 

Express has demonstrated that it holds an unsatisfied judgment against Defendant 

and has submitted a sufficient affidavit averring that the judgment is valid and 

unsatisfied . . . Thus, Casa Express has satisfied the statutory prerequisites of § 

56.29(1) and is entitled to the commencement of proceedings supplementary.”).

In light of the Court’s prior rulings regarding Casa Express’ satisfaction of 

the statutory prerequisites of Fla. Stat. § 56.29(1) and the sufficiency of its affidavit, 

the undersigned concludes that Respondents’ Eighth Affirmative Defense should 

be stricken as legally insufficient.

D.E. 181 at 8-9. 

Respondents acknowledge that this Court has held that Casa “has demonstrated that it holds 

an unsatisfied judgment against Defendant [Venezuela] and has submitted a sufficient affidavit 

averring that the judgment is valid and unsatisfied . . . Thus, Casa Express has satisfied the statutory 

prerequisites of § 56.29(1) and is entitled to the commencement of proceedings supplementary.” 

D.E. 4 at 3. Nevertheless, Respondents respectfully submit that their Eighth Affirmative Defense, 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 189 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2023 Page 2 of 3
which relies on the plain language of the statute and prevailing case law, is legally viable such that 

it should not be stricken from further consideration before this Court. 

Specifically, the plain language of Florida Statute Section 56.29(1) requires an affidavit 

listing “the unsatisfied amount of the judgment or judgment lien, including costs and interests, and 

stating that the execution is valid and outstanding.” Fla. Stat. § 56.29(1) (emphasis added). 

Moreover, by Casa’s own acknowledgement, its argument that the statute does not require a writ 

of execution is contrary to recent case law in this District stating that an unsatisfied writ of 

execution is a prerequisite to proceedings supplementary. D.E. 60 at 28 (citing Versant Funding 

LLC v. Teras Breakbulk Ocean Navigation Enters., LLC, 2020 WL 3146502 (S.D. Fla. Jun. 11, 

2020)). In turn, the Versant opinion cited, and followed, this Court’s holding in Floridians for 

Solar Choice, Inc. v. PCI Consultants, Inc., 2019 WL 2297524, *1 (S.D. Fla. May 30, 2019) 

(Bloom, J.) (“A party bringing a proceeding supplementary to execution must 1) show that he or 

she possesses an unsatisfied writ of execution, and 2) file an affidavit averring that the writ is valid 

and unsatisfied.”). Lastly, Casa’s erroneous interpretation is belied by the fact that Casa attempted 

to obtain a writ of execution against Venezuela “out of an abundance of caution” and “as 

alternative relief.” D.E. 154 at 5.

Respectfully submitted,

BLACK SREBNICK 

201 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1300

Miami, Florida 33131 / Tel: (305) 371-6421

By: /s/ Lisandra Guerrero

Howard Srebnick

Florida Bar No. 919063 

HSrebnick@RoyBlack.com

Lisandra Guerrero

Florida Bar No. 0098521

LGuerrero@RoyBlack.com

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 189 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2023 Page 3 of 3