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 ON PLAINTIFF AND JUDGMENT CREDITOR’S 

MOTION FOR PARTIAL MODIFICATION, AND CLARIFICATION 

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff and Judgment Creditor Casa Express 

Corp’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Partial Modification and Clarification of Order Granting Amended 

Motion to Commence Proceedings Supplementary, ECF No. [77], (“Motion”). Respondents 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”) 

filed a Response, ECF No. [82], (“Response”), to which Plaintiff filed a Reply, ECF No. [100], 

(“Reply”). The Court has carefully considered the Motion, Response, Reply, the record in this 

case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff registered a judgment issued by the Southern District of New York with this Court 

on August 27, 2021. See ECF No. [1]. On September 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed its Ex Parte

Expedited Motion to Commence Proceedings Supplementary, to Implead Defendants, and for 

Issuance of Statutory Notices to Appear (“Ex Parte Motion”). ECF No. [3]. The Court granted the 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 1 of 7
Case No. 21-cv-23103-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

2

Ex Parte Motion and permitted Plaintiff to implead Alejandro Andrade Cedeno (“Cedeno”), Raul 

Gorrin Belisario (“Belisario”), 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., ECF No. [4], and issued statutory notices to appear for each of the 

impleaded defendants, see ECF Nos. [6]-[13].

On June 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed its Motion for Leave to Amend by Interlineation the Ex 

Parte Expedited Motion to Commence Proceedings Supplementary, to Implead Defendants, and 

for Issuance of Statutory Notices to Appear (“Motion for Leave to Amend”). ECF No. [42]. 

Specifically, through its proposed amendments, Plaintiff sought to: (1) incorporate certain 

jurisdictional allegations necessary to effect service of process on impleaded defendant Belisario; 

(2) implead former National Treasurer of Venezuela, Claudia Patricia Diaz Guillen (“Guillen”); 

and (3) incorporate allegations that explain how the parties that participated in the foreign currency 

exchange scheme were unjustly enriched at the expense of Venezuela. Id. Respondents filed their 

Response in opposition to the Motion for Leave to Amend, ECF No. [45], to which Plaintiff filed 

its Reply, ECF No. [50]. The Court referred the Motion for Leave to Amend to Magistrate Judge 

Alicia Otazo-Reyes for a Report and Recommendations (“Referral Order”). See ECF No. [46]. 

The Court subsequently amended its Referral Order to reflect that the Motion for Leave to Amend 

was referred to Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes for disposition. ECF No. [58]. Judge 

Otazo-Reyes granted the Motion for Leave to Amend. ECF No. [59]. 

Plaintiff then filed its Amended Ex Parte Motion. ECF No. [60]. The Court Granted the 

Amended Ex Parte Motion, ECF No. [62] and issued Statutory Notices to Appear attached to the 

Amended Ex Parte Motion, ECF No. [60-29], to Guillen, Cedeno, Belisario, RIM Group 

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

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 2 of 7
Case No. 21-cv-23103-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

3

Investments III Corp., Posh 8 Dynamic Inc., and Planet 2 Reaching Inc. ECF Nos. [63]-[73], [76]. 

Shortly thereafter, on September 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed the Instant Motion seeking partial 

modification and clarification. ECF No. [77].

In the Motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court: (1) reconsider and partially modify its Order 

to only require service of the Impleaded Defendants who have not yet been served with process; 

and (2) modify the Order to provide the other Impleaded Defendants and the Judgment Debtor an 

opportunity to respond to the allegations incorporated via interlineation within 7 business days of 

a partially modified Order. See ECF No. [77]. In the alternative, Plaintiff requests clarification as 

to whether the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (“Venezuela”) must be re-served with the 

Amended Pleading. Id. Respondents oppose Plaintiff’s request for modification and argue that 

Plaintiff must comply with foreign service requirements and serve Venezuela and that 

Respondents are entitled to serve full and fair answers to the amended pleading. ECF No. [82] at 

3.

II. DISCUSSION

The Court addresses Plaintiff’s requests that the Court partially modify its Order on the 

Amended Ex Parte Motion: (1) to only require service of the Impleaded Defendants who have not 

yet been served with process; and (2) to provide the other Impleaded Defendants and the Judgment 

Debtor a limited opportunity to respond to the allegations incorporated via interlineation1

. See ECF 

No. [77].

1 Although Plaintiff requests that the Order indicate that attorney’s fees and costs shall be taxed to the Judgment 

Debtor, the Court declines to address that request because it was not supported by a memorandum of law as required 

by Local Rule 7.1(a)(1).

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 3 of 7
Case No. 21-cv-23103-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

4

A. Required Service

Plaintiff argues that in an ordinary civil action, a plaintiff who amends its operative 

pleading would not be required to re-serve a defendant who had already been served with the 

original pleading. ECF No. [77] at 2-3. Plaintiff asserts that re-service should not be required on 

the Judgment Debtor or Impleaded Defendants who have already been served, including defaulted 

Defendant Cedeno, because all Defendants who have already been served have actual notice of 

this proceeding. Id. at 4-6. With regard to Cedeno in particular, Plaintiff specifies that the Amended 

Ex Parte Motion did not assert a new claim for relief against the defaulted party. Id. at 5 (citing 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(2)). Respondents counter that the Court must require service of the amended 

pleading on Judgment Debtor, Venezuela, pursuant to the requirements of the Foreign Sovereign

Immunities Act (“FSIA”) and the Hague Service Convention. ECF No. [82] at 8-10.

i. Defendant Cedeno

Plaintiff argues that it need not re-serve defaulted Defendant Cedeno. ECF No. [77] at 4-

6. Respondents do not address service of Defendant Cedeno. See ECF No. [82]. In support of 

Plaintiff’s position, Plaintiff argues that “Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure plainly 

provides that there is no obligation to re-serve a party in default with an amended pleading unless 

it ‘asserts a new claim for relief against such a party[.]’” ECF No. [77] at 5 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 5(a)(2)). Plaintiff asserts that the Amended Ex Parte Motion does not assert a new claim for 

relief against Cedeno and therefore service of the Amended Ex Parte Motion is not necessary. Id. 

(citing HostLogic Zrt. v. GH Int'l, Inc., 613CV982ORL36KRS, 2013 WL 12394254, at *2 (M.D. 

Fla. Dec. 17, 2013)(holding that Plaintiff did not have to serve the amended pleading on certain 

defaulted Defendants because it did “not include any new claims for relief against Defendants [but] 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 4 of 7
Case No. 21-cv-23103-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

5

merely clarifie[d] the allegations set forth in the original [pleading]”)). The Court agrees that 

Plaintiff does not need to re-serve Defendant Cedeno.

ii. Venezuela

On November 17, 2021, the Court issued an Order authorizing Plaintiff to serve Venezuela 

through diplomatic channels pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(4). ECF No. [38]. In that Order, the 

Court specified that the Motion to Commence Proceedings Supplementary, ECF No. [3], would 

be considered the equivalent of a complaint for purposes of effecting service on Venezuela through 

diplomatic channels. Id. at 3. A U.S. Department of State diplomatic note, the Summons, and 

Motion to Commence Proceedings Supplementary were delivered to the Embassy of the 

Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in Washington, DC on May 5, 2022. See ECF No. [41]. 

In support of their argument that re-service on Venezuela is necessary, Respondents rely 

on Lindsayca USA, Inc. v. de Venezuela, 4:21-CV-00037, 2022 WL 3588041 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 

2022), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Lindsayca USA, Inc. v. Petroleos de 

Venzuela, S.A., 4:21-CV-00037, 2022 WL 4588588 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2022). There, the Court 

noted that plaintiff attempted to serve both the complaint and first amended complaint with 

summons on Venezuela. Id. at *1. Plaintiff contends that Lindsayca is distinguishable where 

service of process was governed by 1608(b) since service was to an agency or instrumentality of 

a foreign state. Here, however, service is to a foreign state or political subdivision of a foreign state

and governed by 1608(a). ECF No. [100] at 6. Plaintiff points out that due process is satisfied 

because Venezuela has actual notice of this proceeding and will be given an opportunity to respond 

to the allegations that have been incorporated via interlineation in the Amended Ex Parte Motion. 

Id. at 7. Plaintiff relies upon the Eleventh Circuit’s decision that a district court’s failure to issue a 

notice to appear did not violate due process where the third party had notice of the proceedings 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 5 of 7
Case No. 21-cv-23103-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

6

supplementary and an opportunity to contest the Court’s findings. Stansell v. Lopez Bello, 802 F. 

App'x 445, 449 (11th Cir. 2020).

The Court agrees with Plaintiff. Since Venezuela was served via diplomatic channels 

pursuant to this Court’s Order, Venezuela has notice of the current proceedings. Just as an amended 

complaint need not be served after an initial complaint is served, service of the Amended Ex Parte 

Motion on Venezuela is not necessary.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff need only serve previously unserved Impleaded 

Defendants, Belisario and Guillen.

B. Opportunity to Respond

Plaintiff requests that the Court partially modify its Order to afford Respondents Cedeno 

and Venezuela an opportunity to file a response limited to the allegations incorporated in the 

Amended Ex Parte Motion by interlineation within seven business days of the Court’s partially 

modified Order. ECF No. [77] at 7. Respondents counter that all Respondent entities should be 

permitted to fully respond and contend that the Court should not anticipatorily preclude 

Respondents from “serving fulsome answers and responses on a motion for ‘clarification’ and 

“modification.’” Moreover, the proper procedure would be to allow Respondents to serve amended 

answers and responses and only then should Plaintiff argue to the Court that a certain response 

raised by Respondents has been waived. Id. at 7-8. Plaintiff replies that Respondents’ proposed 

procedure conflicts with federal court policy disfavoring duplicative litigation. ECF No. [100] at 

4. 

The Court agrees with Respondents. Plaintiff has not cited any case law where, in a similar 

procedural posture, a Court preemptively precluded or dictated the proper contents of a response 

to an amended pleading. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3), the Court therefore orders Venezuela, 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 6 of 7
Case No. 21-cv-23103-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

7

Cedeno, and Respondents, to respond to the Amended Ex Parte Motion within 14 days of the 

issuance of this order. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i), Impleaded Defendants Belisario 

and Guillen shall respond to the Amended Ex Parte Motion within 21 days of service of the

statutory notices to appear and the Amended Ex Parte Motion. 

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No. [77], is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

2. Plaintiff shall serve previously issued Notices to Appear to Impleaded Defendants 

Belisario and Guillen in compliance with Chapter 48, Florida Statutes.

3. Venezuela, Cedeno, and Respondents shall respond to the Amended Ex Parte Motion

by December 13, 2022.

4. Impleaded Defendants Belisario and Guillen shall respond to the Amended Ex Parte 

Motion within 21 days of service of the of the statutory notices to appear and the 

Amended Ex Parte Motion.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on November 29, 2022.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: 

Counsel of Record

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 7 of 7