1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 17-CV-22643-COOKE/GOODMAN

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID RIVERA,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

DEFENDANT DAVID RIVERA’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW

COMES NOW defendant David Rivera, by and through his undersigned counsel, and 

pursuant to Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby moves for summary 

judgement on the single count alleged in the amended complaint. There being no genuine or other

material facts requiring trial for its determination, the defendant is hereby entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law based upon the facts and legal argument as set forth below:

Introduction and Case History 

According to the amended complaint in this case the defendant is accused of participating in 

a scheme with Ana Sol Alliegro and Justin Lamar Sternad to secretly provide more than $55,000.00 

in-kind contributions to the 2012 primary election campaign of Mr. Sternad in Florida’s 26th

Congressional District. The amended complaint accuses Mr. Rivera of directing Ms. Alliegro to 

deliver cash to vendors who were providing services to Mr. Sternad’s election campaign. The

amended complaint further states that the defendant concealed these in-kind contributions by paying 

vendors in cash and instructing Ms. Alliegro to tell candidate Sternad to falsely state on his 

Case 1:17-cv-22643-MGC Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 1 of 5
2

disclosure reports that the funds used to pay the vendors did not originate from Mr. Rivera but, 

instead, were loans from Mr. Sternad’s personal funds. 

Both Justin Sternad and Ana Sol Alliegro were arrested and criminally prosecuted in this 

district for their alleged role in the scheme described in the amended complaint. (See United States 

v. Sternad, case number 13-CR-20108-Altonaga and United States v. Alliegro, case number 14-CR201012-Scola). Although Mr. Rivera was also a subject in this investigation, he was never charged 

with participating in any criminal scheme. 

The original complaint in this cause was filed by the Federal Election Commission on July 

14, 2017. On November 22, 2017 the defendant filed his motion to dismiss the complaint for failure 

to state a cause of action. On September 27, 2018 this Honorable Court entered its order granting 

the defendant’s motion to dismiss, explaining that the facts alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint did 

not support a primary liability on the part of Mr. Rivera because it did not “allege that Rivera 

secretly made donations without Sternad’s knowledge, or that he himself used a false name, or that 

he himself instructed Sternad to falsify his disclosure forms”. (D.E. 31, p. 5). 1

On October 22, 2018 the Federal Election Commission filed a motion to reopen the case and 

requested leave from the Court to file an amended complaint (D.E. 32). On January 5, 2019 this 

Honorable Court granted plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint. On January

15, 2019 plaintiff filed its amended complaint (D.E. 41) to which Mr. Rivera again moved to 

dismiss (D.E. 42).

On April 16, 2019 the Court entertained argument on defendant’s motion to dismiss the 

amended complaint. (D.E. 49). The Court denied defendant’s motion to dismissed based solely on 

1 A secondary actor, i.e. one who helps or assists another in making a contribution in the name of 

another, cannot be the basis to support an FEC claim under §30122. FEC v. Swallow, 304 F. Supp. 

3d 1113 (D. Utah 2018). 

Case 1:17-cv-22643-MGC Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 2 of 5
3

the new allegation that Mr. Rivera had instructed Ana Alliegro to tell Sternad to falsely characterize 

the in-kind donations made to the vendors as loans from the candidate’s own funds and not paid by 

Mr. Rivera (D.E. 49, pps. 23-25, 26-30). The Court summarized on the record that its order 

denying defendant’s motion to dismiss was based upon the alleged fact Mr. Rivera had instructed 

Ana Alliegro to tell Candidate Sternad not to disclose the true source of the funds used to pay the 

vendors, but instead to claim that those funds were from loans made by Mr. Sternad to his own 

campaign. 

As will be demonstrated below there is no evidence present in this case establishing that 

David Rivera personally provided funds to vendors for services rendered to the Sternad campaign,

or that he instructed Ana Alliegro to advise candidate Sternad to falsify his financial disclosure 

forms. 

Arguments and Legal Analysis

The amended complaint alleges that David Rivera made payments to vendors who provided 

in-kind services to the Sternad campaign and “took measures to conceal his involvement and the 

source of the contributions”. The Federal Election Committee has sought to prove that Mr. Rivera 

“delivered cash to vendors providing services to the committee” in an effort to conceal his identity. 

No vendor, or any other witness, has established that Mr. Rivera was the source of cash payments 

delivered to a vendor. Furthermore, even if there was some evidence that Mr. Rivera was the source 

of the cash paid to a vendor, payment of cash alone is insufficient to establish a violation of 52 

U.S.C. §30122. Section 30122 is titled Contributions in Name of Another Prohibited and sates: 

No person shall make a contribution in the name of another person or 

knowingly permit his name to be used to affect such contribution, and no 

person shall knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the 

name of another person. 

Case 1:17-cv-22643-MGC Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 3 of 5
4

This statute does not prohibit making payments to vendors on behalf of a candidate. Any donor 

who pays a vendor for the benefit of a candidate, whether by credit card, check or cash, is not in 

violation of the statute provided that these contributions are reported to the candidate and that the 

candidate discloses such donations on his disclosure form. There is no evidence that Rivera used a 

false name or that he participated in the falsification of Sternad’s disclosure forms. Without

evidence of either, there can be no violation of §30122. 

This Honorable Court specifically found at the hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss the 

amended complaint that the allegation raised in the amended complaint stating that Mr. Rivera 

instructed Alliegro to advise candidate Sternad to falsify his financial disclosure form was the basis 

of its ruling to permit the amended complaint to stand. (Exhibit C). Unfortunately for plaintiff, there 

is no admissible evidence which proves that David Rivera instructed Ana Alliegro in such a way. 

Arguing for summary judgment on behalf of a defendant based solely upon a plaintiff’s 

failure to provide sufficient evidence to support its claim is usually a difficult proposition. 

However, in the present case, there is no available evidence to establish Mr. Rivera instructed Ana 

Alliegro to advise candidate Sternad to falsify his financial disclosure forms. Ms. Alliegro has not 

provided any admissible evidence regarding this fact. There is no admissible evidence nor any 

witness which can establish this most essential fact. 

Even if there was some evidence in this case to demonstrate Mr. Rivera participated in or 

assisted in the delivery of cash to vendors for the services they rendered, there is no evidence 

establishing that Mr. Rivera sought to conceal his identity or cause the candidate to take steps to 

hide his identity. Mr. Sternad signed and mailed multiple disclosure forms to the FEC, falsely 

stating that the contributions he received from the vendors were paid by loans from his personal 

funds. This he did solely upon the direction of Ana Alliegro. Without the testimony of any witness

Case 1:17-cv-22643-MGC Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 4 of 5
5

to specifically place the blame at Mr. Rivera’s feet for the falsification of the FEC forms, there is no

violation of §30122 and summary judgment should be granted. 

Respectfully submitted,

ROY J. KAHN, P.A.

800 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1400

Miami, Florida 33131

Tel: (305) 358-7400

Fax: (305) 358-7222

/s/___Roy J. Kahn________

ROY J. KAHN

Florida Bar No. 224359

rjk@roykahnlaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 10, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is 

being served this day on all counsel of record and emailed. 

_/s/ Roy J. Kahn________

ROY J. KAHN

Case 1:17-cv-22643-MGC Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 5 of 5