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,

Defendant.

_______________________________________/

ANSWER TO ADVERSARY COMPLAINT FILED BY DEFENDANT, 

JUAN A. GONZALEZ

JUAN A. GONZALEZ, the Defendant herein, hereby files this Answer and

Affirmative Defenses to the Adversary Complaint, and states as grounds the following:

1. Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez filed the instant bankruptcy, case number 18-11977-

BKC-RAM, on February 22, 2018, “the bankruptcy”. Paragraph 6 is denied to the

extent of the date.

2. The Defendant is without knowledge as to paragraph 1.

3. The Defendant denies paragraphs 2 and 3. 

4. The Defendant admits paragraph 4 only to the extent that the Plaintiffs are

Venezuelan citizens. The Defendant denies that the Plaintiffs are creditors.

5. The Defendant admits paragraph 5, 7, 8 10, 11, 12 and 13. As to the dates

of filing, Defendant had to verify with undersigned counsel.

6. The Defendant admits paragraph 9 to the extent that the Plaintiffs were not

noticed of the filing of the bankruptcy.

7. The Defendant denies paragraphs 14 and 15.

8. The Defendant denies paragraph 16 as he does not believe the Plaintiffs are

Case 21-01140-RAM Doc 24 Filed 07/27/21 Page 1 of 8
creditors.

9. The Defendant responds to paragraph 17:

a. The Defendant admits that the Plaintiffs are Venezuelan citizens and

there are two (2) children of the marriage The Defendant does not have personal

knowledge as to whether they are “hard workers”.

b. The Defendant denies the balance of paragraph 17 as he did not

swindle the Plaintiffs and did not make untruthful statements, or lie about investments

or distributions.

10. The Defendant denies paragraph 18. He did not represent himself as a

Venezuelan lawyer and economist. The Defendant has no personal knowledge and

denies the balance of paragraph 18. 

11. The Defendant denies paragraph 19 and demands strict proof. 

12. The Defendant denies paragraphs 20, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 36, 41, 42, 44, 45,

50, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 80, 85, 91, 92, 95, 96,

97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123

124, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 145, 146, 147, 148,

149, and 150 and requests strict proof.

13. The Defendant admits paragraph 21 to the extent Plaintiffs decided to invest

in financial products and acknowledge terms and conditions. The balance is denied as

the Plaintiffs decided on the financial products.

14. The Defendant admits paragraph 22 to the extent that the Plaintiffs sign the

subscription agreement, but deny the rest. 

15. The Defendant denies paragraph 25 as the documents were provided by the

Internal Revenue Service.

16. The Defendant admits paragraph 26 to the extent that he attended a

meeting in Caracas Venezuela. The balance is denied.

17. The Defendant admits paragraph 27 to the extent that he attended a

meeting in Caracas Venezuela. The balance is denied. 

18. The Defendant denies paragraph 31 as all monies were paid to third parties

under the direction of the Plaintiffs.

19. The Defendant denies paragraphs 32 and 33 as the Plaintiffs were merely

Case 21-01140-RAM Doc 24 Filed 07/27/21 Page 2 of 8
assisted in the payment of third parties for mailing reception and corporate addresses.

20. The Defendant denies paragraph 34 and 35 as the Defendant is without

knowledge.

21. The Defendant denies paragraph 37 as fees were paid to third parties only

for mail services and corporate addresses. Plaintiffs have the receipts.

22. The Defendant admits paragraph 38 to the extent of periodic meetings in

Venezuela. The balance is denied.

23. The Defendant admits paragraph 39 as he gave reports provided by

Intertrust office in Caracas, Venezuela, but denies that he deceived the Plaintiffs and

that he fabricated the reports

24. The Defendant denies paragraph 40; it is admitted to the extent account

statements were issued by Merrimac Corporate Securities and mailed directly to the

Plaintiffs.

25. The Defendant admits paragraph 43 to the existence of emails and

WhatsApp texts. The Defendant denies the veracity of the content.

26. The Defendant admits paragraph 46.

27. The Defendant admits paragraph 47 to the extent there was a meeting in a

restaurant and denies that he had an apartment at the Ritz Carlton.

28. The Defendant admits paragraphs 48, and 51 to the extent there was a

meeting, and denies the balance of paragraphs 48 and 51.

29. The Defendant admits paragraph 49 to the extent that the Plaintiffs ask for

help again to find a third party provider, monies paid to a third party provider for mail

reception and corporate address that the Plaintiffs did not pay for several years. The

Defendant denies utilizing his company to carry out a fraud.

30. The Defendant denies paragraph 54 as it was the responsibility of the

Plaintiffs to keep a company in “good standing”.

31. The Defendant denies paragraph 55 to the extent of any representation of a

“Ponzi scheme”. 

32. The Defendant denies paragraph 59 as representations/descriptions include

terms and conditions signed by the Plaintiffs, as well as acknowledgment of disclaimers

agreed by the Plaintiffs for more than fifteen (15) years.

Case 21-01140-RAM Doc 24 Filed 07/27/21 Page 3 of 8
33. The Defendant denies paragraph 60 as the Plaintiffs decided their

investment strategies.

34. The Defendant denies paragraph 65 as the Plaintiffs had full knowledge.

35. The Defendant denies paragraph 66 as he is without knowledge.

36. The Defendant denies paragraph 67 as due diligence was provided by

Intertrust.

37. The Defendant admits the Plaintiff filled out the due diligence forms, and

denies the balance of paragraph 68.

39. The Defendant admits due diligence was provided by Intertrust, and denies

the balance of paragraph 70.

40. The Defendant denies paragraph 76 as he is without knowledge.

41. The Defendant denies paragraph 78; it is admitted for limited representation

of providing company names.

42. The Defendant denies paragraph 79 as to the Plaintiffs issuing checks and

wire transfers to Mr. Gonzalez and his entities: a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p. 

The Defendant admits that q, r, s, t. were to pay third parties service providers for mail

reception and forwarding and corporate address, plaintiffs received third parties

receipts. 

43. The Defendant admits paragraphs 81 and 82 to the extent monies were

deposited, and used to pay third party service providers for mail reception, forwarding,

corporate addresses. 

44. The Defendant denies paragraph 83 to the extent that the Defendant did not

defraud the Plaintiffs or create a scheme to commit fraud.

45. The Defendant denies paragraph 84 as he is without knowledge, and denies

as they are not creditors.

46. The Defendant denies paragraph 86: This is a post petition matter better

served through a state court proceeding. The Defendant did not promise or represent

to the Plaintiffs that there would be a first distribution on 5/14/2020 from the Defendant. 

The Defendant solely admits forwarding to Plaintiffs Intertrust messages of COVID-19.

47. The Defendant denies paragraph 87, as information was provided by

Intertrust, not the Defendant.

Case 21-01140-RAM Doc 24 Filed 07/27/21 Page 4 of 8
48. The Defendant admits paragraph 88 the extent that the Defendant receives

telephone calls and/or texts of more than 20 times a day, and were replied during

business hours.

49. The Defendant denies paragraph 89 as Plaintiffs were directed to

communicate with Intertrust.

50 The Defendant admits paragraph 90. Plaintiffs are not creditors.

51. The Defendant denies paragraph 93 as Plaintiffs were directed to call

Interwealth. 

52. The Defendant is without knowledge as to paragraph 94.

53. The Defendant responds to paragraph 103 by objecting to the statement. A

motion for protective order and motion to dismiss were filed.

54. The Defendant responds to paragraph 104 and denies the representations

made by the Plaintiffs.

55. The Defendant answers paragraph 105: Defendant denies any allegation

of theft, tax evasion, money laundering. Furthermore, any association with Madoff or

the sister and brother- in-law are irrelevant and unnecessary.

56. The Defendant answers paragraph 106: Denies any conditions have been

met, or occurred or waived.

57. The Defendant has no knowledge of the terms/conditions of the Plaintiff’s

retention of their attorney. Accordingly, the Defendant is without knowledge as to

paragraph 107.

58. Defendant cannot answer paragraph 108 as it merely sets forth a statute.

59. The Defendant denies paragraph 116 as the Plaintiffs are not creditors and

the paragraph merely sets forth a statute, and paragraphs previously dealt with by prior

responses.

60. Defendant denies paragraph 117 as it merely sets forth a statute.

61. Defendant denies paragraph 125 as the Plaintiffs are not creditors.

62. Defendant denies paragraph 126 as it merely sets forth a statute, and the

Plaintiffs are not creditors.

63. Defendant denies paragraph 134 as the Plaintiffs are not creditors .

64. Defendant denies paragraph 135 as it merely sets forth a statute, and

Case 21-01140-RAM Doc 24 Filed 07/27/21 Page 5 of 8
incorporates paragraphs previously dealt with by prior responses.

65. Defendant denies paragraph 136.

66. Defendant denies paragraph 141, and is without knowledge as to costs

and attorney fees.

67. Defendant denies paragraph 142 as it merely sets forth a statute.

68. Defendant denies paragraph 143 as it merely sets forth a statute, and the

Plaintiffs are not creditors.

69. Defendant denies paragraph 144 as it merely sets forth a statute.

70. Defendant denies paragraph 151 and reiterates that the Plaintiffs are not

creditors.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT A CREDITOR

71. The Debtor did not list the plaintiffs as creditors. There is no adjudication in

any court of competent jurisdiction: the United States, Venezuela, or the British Virgin

Islands against the Defendant in favor of the Plaintiffs and no determination of fact to

prosecute the instant matter, merely allegations that date back over twelve years. If

there was a true dispute, the an action could have been filed against the Defendant 

The right to file an adversary in the instant case should be predicated upon the plaintiffs

actually being creditors. It is not the case, nor has it been established that the Plaintif fs

are actually creditors. 

RIGHT TO PROSECUTE AN ADVERSARY

72. The right to prosecute an adversary proceeding presupposes the Plaintiffs

are actually creditors. The adversary proceeding is premature. The Plaintiffs

procedurally must establish that they are actually creditors. Only after determination

that the Plaintiffs are creditors can the Plaintiffs prosecute a cause of action against the

Defendant.

Case 21-01140-RAM Doc 24 Filed 07/27/21 Page 6 of 8
FAILURE TO JOIN AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY

73. The Plaintiffs have failed to join indispensable parties: The Defendant was

an agent for investment companies, outside the United States. The companies, as

determined by the Plaintiffs, must be joined. The Plaintiffs have asserted intentional

acts by the Defendant. The allegations repeatedly reference business entities. The

Plaintiffs must join the companies.

 

POST- PETITION CAUSE OF ACTION

 74. The Plaintiffs could assert its rights in Miami-Dade County Court as the

adversary alleges post filing conduct. It would seem logical to determine whether the

plaintiffs are actually creditors in a court of competent jurisdiction. Portions of the

adversary proceeding assert alleged conduct that allegedly occurred post- petition, and

would be subject to jurisdictions other the United States Bankruptcy Court.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

75. Defendant alleges that any cause of action or claim is outside the statute of

limitations as the majority of the transactions occurred over five years ago. There are

some transactions that may be within five years. 

76. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs’ cause of action goes back more

than five years. Some of the allegations go back over 15 years, and thus the fraud

statute of limitations of 12 years would bar the cause of action. The plaintiffs allegedly

waited years; there was ample time to file a suit.

77. Based on the foregoing, the Complaint should be dismissed.

JURISDICTION

78. The entities, including the Plaintiffs, reside outside the United States. The

investment companies are not based in the United States. The Plaintiffs are seeking to

Case 21-01140-RAM Doc 24 Filed 07/27/21 Page 7 of 8
recoup an alleged loss, but this Court does not have jurisdiction over the parties in this

case. The investment companies are not based in the United States. Even if the

Plaintiff is able to establish themselves as creditors, the ability to collect is problematic. 

It would seem logical for the Plaintiffs to explore another venue that has established

jurisdiction, ie. outside the United States. The investments were eventually deposited in

banks in countries that do not subject themselves to US jurisdiction. 

WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Juan A. Gonzalez, requests this Court to dismiss

this case.

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

this 27th

 day of July to: Jeffrey Berlowitz, Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiffs 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 24 Filed 07/27/21 Page 8 of 8