UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IN RE:

CASE NO. 18-11977-BKC-RAM

JUAN GONZALEZ & CAROLINA GONZALEZ, In proceeding in Chapter 13

MIAMI-DADE DIVISION

Debtors.

_______________________________________/

DR. MARIA GABRIELA NOGUERA, ADV. CASE NO. 21-01140-RAM 

DR. CARLOS RODRIGO MATUS MACNIVEN,

and GAVIOTA ENTERPRISE CORPORATION,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JUAN A. GONZALEZ and CAROLINA 

GONZALEZ,

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS

COMES NOW, JUAN A. GONZALEZ and CAROLINA GONZALEZ, the

Defendants/Debtors herein, and hereby file this Reply to Plaintiff’s’ Response to

Motions to Dismiss, and state as grounds the following:

1. On April 26, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an Adversary Complaint against the

Defendants/Debtors.

2. On May 27, 2021, the Defendants/Debtors filed Motions to Dismiss the

Complaint.

3. The Plaintiffs have three (3) initial issues: 

a. Establish that they are creditors and then whether the conduct of the

Debtors is subject to an adversary. This adversary is premature. It still needs to be

established that the Plaintiffs are even creditors. This is quite problematic as the

actions have taken place outside the United States. For reasons known by the

Plaintiffs, they opted to ensure that the government of the United States would not have

any jurisdiction over the investments. The investments appear to be outside the United

States. On information and belief, the Plaintiffs reside in Venezuela. Juan A.

Case 21-01140-RAM Doc 17 Filed 07/02/21 Page 1 of 3
Gonzalez was an agent, not an owner of any investment company. If in fact the

Debtor, Juan A. Gonzalez may be subject to the present adversary, the investment

company certainly should be a necessary and indispensable party as the Plaintiffs want 

a return of their investment allegedly held by this entity. It seems logical that the entity

that received the investment should be a Defendant. It is not lost on the undersigned

that this is problematic as this Court may not have jurisdiction over this business entity. 

The business entity Intertrust, is not based in the United States. It is located in Brazil. 

Its website references the British Virgin Islands. It may likely be necessary for the

Plaintiffs to establish their claim in a court that has jurisdiction. Subsequently, any

judgment would need to be domesticated. This potentially is problematic: would the

foreign court recognize this Court? Normally, chapter 13 cases do not have these

issues.

 b. What law to apply? If the Plaintiffs resided in Venezuela, and the

entity that made the investments is not located in the United States, the Laws of

Venezuela, Brazil, or the British Virgin Islands would apply. It is uncertain whether this

Court has authority to even determine jurisdiction or any adjudication. This Court could

have jurisdiction if there is a judgment, and then whether this Court, or the State of

Florida, acknowledges any adjudication. Issues:

1. This is subject to foreign law and the liability under that law;

2. If the Plaintiffs are creditors, what would be the claim and if there

is a claim, it is likely that the claim would be based on foreign law, and is it subject to

the US Bankruptcy Code, and the jurisdiction of the United States. The issue becomes

one of recognition of a foreign cause of action and possibly a subsequent foreign

judgment.

c. The issue may also be if there is an adjudication in a foreign country,

the Plaintiff would need to domesticate the claim. Would this court or a state court

even agree to domesticate this claim.

2. It has been alleged that Mrs. Gonzalez aided and abetted her husband. 

There are no facts substantiating the allegation. The allegations are made solely

against Mr. Gonzalez. 

3. Paragraph 3 of the Response (D.E. 15) references the failure to notice the

Case 21-01140-RAM Doc 17 Filed 07/02/21 Page 2 of 3
Plaintiffs of the bankruptcy filing. A bankruptcy lists creditors; the Debtors contend that

the Plaintiffs are not creditors. 

4. Paragraph 9 references the Debtors’ request for dismissal on the ground that 

any possible and disputed claim is barred by the Statute of Limitations. Paragraph 10

of the Response states that there were post petition procurement of monies. The 

Plaintiffs’ should attempt to establish their rights in a court of proper jurisdiction. In the

event there is an adjudication, the Plaintiffs could advise the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of

the determination and whether the US Bankruptcy Court has any right to enforce a

foreign judgment. This suggestion will also resolve whether the Plaintiffs are possible

creditors.

I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically on

the 2nd day of July, 2021 to: Jeffrey Berlowitz, Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiffs; Nancy

Neidich, Trustee and Office of the U.S. Trustee and that I am admitted to the Bar of the

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and I am in compliance

with the additional qualifications to practice in this Court as set forth in Local Rule 2090-

1(A).

Bigge & Rodriguez, P.A.

915 Middle River Drive, #401

Ft. Lauderdale FL 33304

brpa@biggerodriguez.com

954-400-7322/fax 954-400-5449

By: /s/Robert J. Bigge, Jr. 

ROBERT J. BIGGE, JR., Esq.

Florida Bar No. 906610

Case 21-01140-RAM Doc 17 Filed 07/02/21 Page 3 of 3