Villoldo v. The Republic of Cuba

• Docket Number: Civil Action 21-cv-02497-NYW-NRN
• Decision Date: 01 September 2023
• Parties: GUSTAVO E. VILLOLDO, individually, and as Administrator, Executor, and Personal Representative of the Estate of Gustavo Villoldo Argilagos, Plaintiff, v. THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

1

GUSTAVO E. VILLOLDO, individually, and as Administrator, Executor, and Personal Representative of the Estate of Gustavo Villoldo Argilagos, Plaintiff,
v.
THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 21-cv-02497-NYW-NRN

United States District Court, D. Colorado

September 1, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Nina Y. Wang United States District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion for Default Judgment (the “Supplemental Motion” or “Supplemental Motion for Default Judgment”) [Doc. 42]. Upon review of the Supplemental Motion, the record before the Court, and the applicable case law, the Supplemental Motion for Default Judgment is respectfully GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This Court set out the factual and procedural background of this case in detail in its March 7, 2023 Order on Motion for Default Judgment (the “March 2023 Order”) [Doc. 41] and fully incorporates that background discussion and analysis here. In 2011, Alfredo Villoldo and Gustavo Villoldo (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a state court lawsuit in Florida against Defendant, the Republic of Cuba (“Defendant” or “Cuba”), pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). See [Doc. 1 at ¶ 6]. Broadly speaking, Plaintiffs alleged that Cuba's “acts of terrorism and torture against Plaintiffs and their father [(“Mr. Villoldo”)], which started in January 1959 and continued through mid-2003, led to Mr. Villoldo's death on February 16, 1959, the confiscation

2

of [Mr. Villoldo's] property, and extreme emotional distress to his family, including Plaintiffs.” [Id. at ¶ 5]; see also [Doc. 1-3 at 2-12]. Defendant was served in the underlying state court case but failed to appear, and judgment was entered in Plaintiffs' favor in that case on August 22, 2011. [Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 6-9]. The state court judgment was later amended and corrected on May 24 and 25, 2021, effective nunc pro tunc to August 22, 2011. [Id. at ¶¶ 9-11]; see also [Doc. 33-2].

This civil action was commenced on September 14, 2021 for the purposes of “seek[ing] the recognition, confirmation, and enforcement of [the] money judgment award rendered in [Plaintiffs'] favor against” Cuba in the Florida state court. [Doc. 1 at ¶ 1]. Defendant was served in this case but failed to appear, which caused Plaintiffs to move for entry of default, see [Doc. 31], and default was entered by the Clerk of Court for this District on June 30, 2022. [Doc. 32]. That same day, Plaintiffs filed Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Default Judgment (the “First Motion for Default Judgment” or “First Motion”). [Doc. 33]. After requesting and obtaining supplemental briefing from Plaintiffs, see [Doc. 36; Doc. 37], this Court granted the First Motion for Default Judgment in part and denied it in part. [Doc. 41]. Specifically, the Court first concluded that Plaintiffs demonstrated that the Florida court had subject matter jurisdiction over Gustavo's claims, both individually and as executor of Mr. Villoldo's Estate (the “Estate”), and Alfredo's claims, to the extent they were based on the extrajudicial killing of Mr. Villoldo; accordingly, the Court granted the First Motion to the extent it sought confirmation of the state court's subject matter jurisdiction over those claims. [Id. at 25, 31, 41].^[1]However, the Court denied the First Motion to the extent that it asked the Court to confirm subject matter jurisdiction over Alfredo's claims based on acts of torture, finding that Plaintiffs had not established that the state court had

3

subject matter jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to an FSIA exception. [Id. at 25]. In addition, the Court denied the First Motion insofar as it asked the Court to “grant[] full faith and credit to the Florida state court's” final judgment based on two concerns raised by the Court: (1) whether it was legally permissible for the Court to enter a new federal judgment in this context, [id. at 36-39], and (2) whether the Court could accurately ascertain how much of the claimed damages were attributable to the claims that this Court found were within the state court's subject matter jurisdiction. [Id. at 39-40]. The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to file a supplemental motion addressing the proper course of action for the Court to take in this case. [Id. at 41].

Plaintiffs filed the instant Supplemental Motion for Default Judgment on April 18, 2023. [Doc. 42]. In the Supplemental Motion, Plaintiffs explain that they do not ask the Court to “register” the state court judgment, or to “enter a new judgment on the underlying claims previously litigated in state court.” [Id. at 8]. Instead, they request that the Court “enter judgment for the purpose of confirming the subject matter jurisdiction of and granting full faith and credit to the Florida state court judgment . . . so that Plaintiffs may then pursue their judgment enforcement efforts.” [Id. at 8-9]. Specifically, they request that the Court enter judgment in favor of Gustavo individually and as personal representative of the Estate, in the amount of $2,595,000,000. [Id. at 10].^[2] Plaintiffs argue that this Court may enter a federal judgment, and must do so, in order to give full faith and credit to the state court judgment. [Id. at 2, 8-9].

4

Also on April 18, 2023, Alfredo filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice (the “Notice of Dismissal”), voluntarily dismissing his claims in this case without prejudice. [Doc. 43]. Alfredo's Notice of Dismissal is a self-effectuating notice of dismissal pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) (a “plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing . . . a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment”). Indeed, although Rule 41 references an “action,” “[a]n ‘action' under Rule 41 does not mean the entire controversy.” Stafford v. Jaggers, No. 1:08-CV-1732-TCB-AJB, 2009 WL 10664788, at *1 (N.D.Ga. Jan. 23, 2009), report and recommendation adopted, 2009 WL 10664921 (N.D.Ga. Feb. 17, 2009). It is well settled in the Tenth Circuit that “[a]lthough Rule 41(a)(1)(A) refers to dismissal of the ‘action,' the rule permits the dismissal of fewer than all parties so long as all claims against a particular party are dismissed.” Kristina Consulting Grp., LLC v. Debt Pay Gateway, Inc., No. 21-5022, 2022 WL 881575, at *2 n.4 (10th Cir. Mar. 25, 2022). Because Alfredo seeks to dismiss all of his claims in this case against the singular Defendant, the Court concludes that Rule 41 is an appropriate mechanism to meet that end. Accordingly, Alfredo's claims were dismissed without prejudice as of the filing of the Notice, and the Court construes the instant Supplemental Motion for Default Judgment as having been filed by Gustavo only. The Court considers Gustavo's request below.

LEGAL STANDARDS

To obtain a judgment by default, a party must follow the two-step process set out in Rule 55. First, the party must seek an entry of default from the Clerk of Court under Rule 55(a), which provides for the entry of default against any party who “has failed to plead or otherwise defend” against an affirmative request for relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a). Then, after the Clerk of Court has entered default, the party must move for default judgment under Rule 55(b). “[T]he entry of a

5

default judgment is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” Tripodi v. Welch, 810 F.3d 761, 764 (10th Cir. 2016).

In addition, the Full Faith and Credit Clause provides that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State,” U.S. Const., art. IV, § 1, and is implemented and applied to federal courts through 28 U.S.C. § 1738. See Kremer v. Chem. Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 483 n.24 (1982) (“Section 1738 was enacted to implement the Full Faith and Credit Clause, . . . and specifically to insure that federal courts, not included within the constitutional provision, would be bound by state judgments.”); Univ. of Tenn. v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788, 799 (1986). The statute provides that

[s]uch Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory

...