Villoldo v. Ruz
| Decision Date | 11 July 2017 |
| Docket Number | Misc. No. 13-mc-0222 (DRD) |
| Parties | ALFREDO VILLOLDO, individually, and GUSTAVO VILLOLDO, individually, and as executor, administrator, and personal representative of the ESTATE OF GUSTAVO VILLOLDO ARGILAGOS, et al., Plaintiff(s), v. FIDEL CASTRO RUZ, an individual and as an official, employee, or agent of the Republic of Cuba, RAUL CASTRO RUZ, as individual, and as official employee, or agent of the Republic of Cuba, THE MINISTRY OF INTERIOR, an agency and instrumentality of the Republic of Cuba, THE ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA, an instrumentality of the Republic of Cuba, and THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA, a foreign State, Defendant(s). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Pending before the Court are several motions filed by plaintiffs, Alfredo Villoldo and his brother Gustavo Villoldo, who is also the executor, administrator and personal representative of the Estate of Gustavo Villoldo Argilagos.1 The Villoldo brothers were born in the United States of America,2 they are United States citizens, and have resided in the United States since 1960. Id.
Alfredo and Gustavo Villoldo (hereinafter the "Villoldo brothers") are sons of the deceased Gustavo Villoldo Argilagos, who passed away in Cuba on or about February 16, 1959, after the existing government regime had threatened to kill their entire family unless their father, Mr. Villoldo Argilagos committed suicide and turn all of his assets to the Cuban government. After Mr. Villoldo Argilagos was found dead from an apparent suicide, it appears that the Cuban government confiscated the assets owned by Mr. Villoldo Argilagos, which includes, to wit, his land and bank accounts.
The Villoldo brothers flew to the United States over forty years ago, and filed an action in the State of Florida against The Republic of Cuba, and several Cuban government officials. On August 22, 2011, the Villoldos secured a Final Judgment in the amount of $2.79 billion (hereinafter the "Judgment"), in the State Court of Florida, Civil Case No. 08-14505 CA 25, and proceeded to register said Judgment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and the United District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.3
In sum, the Villoldos decided to satisfy the money Judgment issued by the State of Florida by registering the Judgment in the districts wherein Cuban nationals had assets, such as bank accounts, shares, others, from which the Villoldos may simply collect the Judgment money. The Villoldos requested attachment and execution of said assets, on the grounds that the assets located in New York, Massachusetts, and Puerto Rico, are property of The Republic of Cuba, as opposedto the individual Cuban nationals who may appear as the owners of said accounts.
As stated above, the Villoldo brothers proceeded to register the Florida Judgment with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under Case No. 11-cv-09394, together with an Amended Default Judgment of October 25, 2012 issued by the Court . The record shows, however, that the Villoldo brothers have been unable to execute their entire multi-billion dollar registered Judgment in Case No. 11-09394.4 Nonetheless, the Court docket of Case No. 11-09394 shows that, as of this date, the case is active, and the Villoldo brothers are leaving no stones unturned in their pursuit of attempting to execute the registered Amended Default Judgment registered in Case No. 11-09394.
The Villoldo brothers registered the same Amended Default Judgment with this Court, on May 21, 2013, under Case No. 13-mc-222 (DRD).
The issue before the Court is whether the accounts being pursued by plaintiffs are the property of Cuba.5
On November 21, 2014, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico's ("Banco Popular") filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena served by plaintiffs requesting the production of documents and/or informationon the grounds relating to the execution of the Final Judgment entered by the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit In and For Miami-Dade County, Florida, on August 22, 2011, in Case No. 08-14505 CA 25, and the Amended Default Judgment entered in Case No. 11-09394 (LTW), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. See Case No. 13-mc-222, Docket entry No. 1-1, pages 2-12. Plaintiffs' Subpoena served upon Banco Popular, specifically requested the production of the following information:
See Case No. 13-mc-222, Docket entry No. 5.
On September 17, 2015, the Court held a hearing on Banco Popular's Motion to Quash Subpoena, and plaintiffs' opposition thereto. After considering the arguments of the parties, the Court then denied Banco Popular's motion to quash, and ordered Banco Popular to provide theinformation requested to be filed in a restrictive fashion and accessible to selected parties only. See Case No. 13-mc-222, Minutes for the Hearing held on September 17, 2015, Docket entry No. 21, and the Transcript of the Proceedings held on September 17, 2015, Docket entry No. 32.
On January 13, 2017, the Court entered an Order at Docket No. 51, wherein the Court granted the parties 14 days to show cause why the Court should not dismiss the instant action with prejudice based on federal circuit court opinions cited therein. Plaintiffs vehemently opposed to the dismissal of the instant case, and cited all the federal district courts wherein the Villoldo brothers have registered their Florida state court Judgment, and have received full faith and credit for said Judgment. "While not every effort has born fruit, the Plaintiff have recovered in excess of $10,000,000.00 on their judgment through orders of federal district courts directing turnover of blocked Cuban assets." See Docket entry No. 52. Plaintiffs reiterates their right to the information requested from Banco Popular, as they are not requesting the turnover of property that Banco Popular may be holding under the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 515. Id.
Plaintiffs further moved the Court to schedule a status conference and to issue an order of execution and writ of garnishment. Banco Popular opposed all the Plaintiffs' requests. See Docket entries No. 57, 58, 59 and 60. Our analysis follows.
Section 1604 provides in its relevant part:
Subject to existing international agreements to which the United States is a party at the time of enactment of this Act a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States except as provided in sections 1605 to 1607of this chapter.
As stated above, the core of the issue in the instant case is "whether the accounts being pursued by the Villoldo brothers for attachment and execution are the property of Cuba." Villoldo v. Castro Ruz, 821 F.3d 196, 201-202 (1st Cir.2016). Based upon the factual similarities between the First Circuit case and the instant case, the Court closely discuss and follows the First Circuit decision.
The First Circuit analysis follows:
Under the mandate of the First Circuit, any monies or assets under the custody of Banco Popular in Puerto Rico, which are under the name of Fidel Castro Ruz; Raul Castro Ruz; The Republic of Cuba; The Ministry of Interior, an agency or instrumentality of The Republic of Cuba; The Army of the Republic of Cuba, an agency or instrumentality of The Republic of Cuba, and The Republic of Cuba, a foreign state, are attachable as they are identical to the defendants in State of Florida Case No. 08-14505 CA 25, wherein a judgment for execution of over $2 Billion dollars was rendered against said parties.
There is no dispute that if the accounts subject to the initial turnover order are the property of Cuba, then they are subject to attachment, even though the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act generally immunizes "foreign state[s]" in United States courts, 28 U.S.C. § 1604, and protects the property of foreign states from attachment and execution. Id. § 1609. The reason is that an exception to the general rule regarding foreign sovereign immunity applies to cases related to terrorism, see id. §§ 1605A; 1610(a)(7); see also Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 ("TRIA"), Pub. L. No. 107-297, 116 Stat. 2322, 2337 (), and there is no dispute that this exception would apply here.
It is also certain that some assets may not be attached due to the "extraterritorial exception."
To continue reading
Request your trial