{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca11-24-11642-2025-10-29", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca11-24-11642-2025-10-29)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-14", "fingerprint": "ewai:us:88b5b2", "proof": "sha256:45d144cfbb1cc3bdcc41534fe19aa99ea3aebd407a9036c25dae793918c050ed", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:ca11-24-11642-2025-10-29", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "Front matter", "paragraphs": [ "para_1", "para_2", "para_3", "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19", "para_20", "para_21", "para_22", "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26", "para_27", "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36", "para_37", "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65", "para_66", "para_67", "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119", "para_120", "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126", "para_127", "para_128", "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139", "para_140", "para_141", "para_142", "para_143", "para_144", "para_145", "para_146", "para_147", "para_148", "para_149", "para_150", "para_151", "para_152", "para_153", "para_154", "para_155", "para_156", "para_157", "para_158", "para_159", "para_160", "para_161", "para_162", "para_163", "para_164", "para_165", "para_166", "para_167", "para_168", "para_169", "para_170", "para_171", "para_172", "para_173", "para_174", "para_175", "para_176", "para_177", "para_178", "para_179", "para_180", "para_181", "para_182", "para_183", "para_184", "para_185", "para_186", "para_187", "para_188", "para_189", "para_190", "para_191", "para_192", "para_193", "para_194", "para_195", "para_196", "para_197", "para_198", "para_199", "para_200", "para_201", "para_202", "para_203", "para_204", "para_205", "para_206", "para_207", "para_208", "para_209", "para_210", "para_211", "para_212", "para_213", "para_214", "para_215", "para_216", "para_217", "para_218", "para_219", "para_220", "para_221", "para_222", "para_223", "para_224", "para_225", "para_226", "para_227", "para_228", "para_229", "para_230", "para_231", "para_232", "para_233", "para_234", "para_235", "para_236", "para_237", "para_238", "para_239", "para_240", "para_241", "para_242", "para_243", "para_244", "para_245", "para_246", "para_247", "para_248", "para_249", "para_250", "para_251", "para_252", "para_253", "para_254", "para_255", "para_256", "para_257", "para_258", "para_259", "para_260", "para_261", "para_262", "para_263", "para_264", "para_265", "para_266", "para_267", "para_268", "para_269", "para_270", "para_271", "para_272", "para_273", "para_274", "para_275", "para_276", "para_277", "para_278", "para_279", "para_280", "para_281", "para_282", "para_283", "para_284", "para_285", "para_286", "para_287", "para_288", "para_289", "para_290", "para_291", "para_292", "para_293", "para_294", "para_295", "para_296", "para_297", "para_298", "para_299", "para_300", "para_301", "para_302", "para_303", "para_304", "para_305", "para_306", "para_307", "para_308", "para_309", "para_310", "para_311", "para_312", "para_313", "para_314", "para_315", "para_316", "para_317", "para_318", "para_319", "para_320", "para_321", "para_322", "para_323", "para_324", "para_325", "para_326", "para_327", "para_328", "para_329", "para_330", "para_331", "para_332", "para_333", "para_334", "para_335", "para_336", "para_337", "para_338", "para_339", "para_340", "para_341", "para_342", "para_343", "para_344", "para_345", "para_346", "para_347", "para_348", "para_349", "para_350", "para_351", "para_352", "para_353", "para_354", "para_355", "para_356", "para_357", "para_358", "para_359", "para_360", "para_361", "para_362", "para_363", "para_364", "para_365", "para_366", "para_367", "para_368", "para_369", "para_370", "para_371", "para_372", "para_373", "para_374", "para_375", "para_376", "para_377", "para_378", "para_379", "para_380", "para_381", "para_382", "para_383", "para_384", "para_385", "para_386", "para_387", "para_388", "para_389", "para_390", "para_391", "para_392", "para_393", "para_394", "para_395", "para_396", "para_397", "para_398", "para_399", "para_400", "para_401", "para_402", "para_403", "para_404", "para_405", "para_406", "para_407", "para_408", "para_409", "para_410", "para_411", "para_412", "para_413", "para_414", "para_415", "para_416", "para_417", "para_418", "para_419", "para_420", "para_421", "para_422", "para_423", "para_424", "para_425", "para_426", "para_427", "para_428", "para_429", "para_430", "para_431", "para_432", "para_433", "para_434", "para_435", "para_436", "para_437", "para_438", "para_439", "para_440", "para_441", "para_442", "para_443", "para_444", "para_445", "para_446", "para_447", "para_448", "para_449", "para_450", "para_451", "para_452", "para_453", "para_454", "para_455", "para_456", "para_457", "para_458", "para_459", "para_460", "para_461", "para_462", "para_463", "para_464", "para_465", "para_466", "para_467", "para_468", "para_469", "para_470", "para_471", "para_472", "para_473", "para_474", "para_475", "para_476", "para_477", "para_478", "para_479", "para_480", "para_481", "para_482", "para_483", "para_484", "para_485", "para_486", "para_487", "para_488", "para_489", "para_490", "para_491", "para_492", "para_493", "para_494", "para_495", "para_496", "para_497", "para_498", "para_499", "para_500", "para_501", "para_502", "para_503", "para_504", "para_505", "para_506", "para_507", "para_508", "para_509", "para_510", "para_511", "para_512", "para_513", "para_514", "para_515", "para_516", "para_517", "para_518", "para_519", "para_520", "para_521", "para_522", "para_523", "para_524", "para_525", "para_526", "para_527", "para_528", "para_529", "para_530", "para_531", "para_532", "para_533", "para_534", "para_535", "para_536", "para_537", "para_538", "para_539", "para_540", "para_541", "para_542", "para_543", "para_544", "para_545", "para_546", "para_547", "para_548", "para_549", "para_550", "para_551", "para_552", "para_553", "para_554", "para_555", "para_556", "para_557", "para_558", "para_559", "para_560", "para_561", "para_562", "para_563", "para_564", "para_565", "para_566", "para_567", "para_568", "para_569", "para_570", "para_571", "para_572", "para_573", "para_574", "para_575", "para_576", "para_577", "para_578", "para_579", "para_580", "para_581", "para_582", "para_583", "para_584", "para_585", "para_586", "para_587", "para_588", "para_589", "para_590", "para_591", "para_592", "para_593", "para_594", "para_595", "para_596", "para_597", "para_598", "para_599", "para_600", "para_601", "para_602", "para_603", "para_604", "para_605", "para_606", "para_607", "para_608", "para_609", "para_610", "para_611", "para_612", "para_613", "para_614", "para_615", "para_616", "para_617", "para_618", "para_619", "para_620", "para_621", "para_622", "para_623", "para_624", "para_625", "para_626", "para_627", "para_628", "para_629", "para_630", "para_631", "para_632", "para_633", "para_634", "para_635", "para_636", "para_637", "para_638", "para_639", "para_640", "para_641", "para_642", "para_643", "para_644", "para_645", "para_646", "para_647", "para_648", "para_649", "para_650", "para_651", "para_652", "para_653", "para_654", "para_655", "para_656", "para_657", "para_658", "para_659", "para_660", "para_661", "para_662", "para_663", "para_664", "para_665" ], "kind": "front_matter" } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "FOR PUBLICATION", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "In the", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "United States Court of Appeals", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "For the Eleventh Circuit", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "____________________", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "No. 24-11642", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "____________________", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "CASA EXPRESS CORP,", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "as Trustee of Casa Express Trust,", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "Plaintiff-Appellant,", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "versus", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA, et al.,", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "Defendants-Third Party Defendants,", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "PLANET 2 REACHING, INC.,", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "POSH 8 DYNAMIC, INC.,", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "RIM GROUP INVESTMENTS CORP.,", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "RIM GROUP INVESTMENTS I CORP.,", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "RAUL GORRIN BELISARIO, et al.,", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "Defendants-Appellees.", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11642 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2025 Page: 1 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "2 Opinion of the Court 24-11642", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "____________________", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "Appeal from the United States District Court", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "for the Southern District of Florida", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-23103-BB", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "____________________", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "Before JILL PRYOR, LUCK, and HULL, Circuit Judges.", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "HULL, Circuit Judge:", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "In 2018, Casa Express Corp. (“Casa”) obtained a $40 million", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "judgment against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "(“Venezuela”) in the Southern District of New York based on", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "unpaid global bonds and a global note issued by Venezuela. In", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "2021, Casa initiated supplementary proceedings in the Southern", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "District of Florida against third-party defendants Raul Gorrin", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "Belisario (“Gorrin”) and his six corporate entities. Casa sought to", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "execute the New York judgment against eight real properties", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "owned by those shell corporate defendants. Importantly, though,", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "none of the properties are owned by Venezuela, the judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "debtor.", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "Nonetheless, in an effort to execute the New York judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "in Florida, Casa’s amended motion alleged that Gorrin (1) bribed", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "Venezuelan public officials so that he could obtain foreign currency", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "exchange contracts from the Venezuelan government; (2) profited", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "from those unlawfully obtained contracts; and (3) used those", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "profits to purchase the eight real properties in Florida through the", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "six corporate defendants. Casa asked the district court to impose a", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "constructive trust on the eight properties and to find that the", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11642 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2025 Page: 2 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "24-11642 Opinion of the Court 3", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "properties belonged to Venezuela based on Casa’s", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "constructive-trust theory.", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "Defendants Gorrin and the six corporate entities moved for", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "judgment on the pleadings based on the district court’s lack of", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "ancillary jurisdiction over Casa’s claim and alternatively on the", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "merits. After the district court granted the defendants’ motion,", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "Casa appealed.", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "After review and oral argument, we hold that the district", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "court lacked ancillary jurisdiction because (1) Casa’s amended", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "motion seeks to impose liability on third parties who are not", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "already obligated to pay the New York judgment, and (2) Casa’s", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "action against the defendants is founded upon different facts and", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "theories of liability than its lawsuit against Venezuela.", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s ancillary-jurisdiction", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "ruling, vacate its alternative merits rulings, and remand for the", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "district court to dismiss this case without prejudice for lack of", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "subject matter jurisdiction.", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "I. CASA’S NEW YORK LAWSUIT AGAINST VENEZUELA", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "A. Casa’s Claims Against Venezuela", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "In December 2018, Casa filed a complaint against Venezuela", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "in federal court in the Southern District of New York. Casa alleged", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "that it was the beneficial owner of interests in debt securities,", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "“global bonds” and a “global note,” issued by Venezuela in 1998", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "and 2002 pursuant to Fiscal Agency Agreements (“FAAs”). Under", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "the FAAs, Venezuela was obligated to repay the principal of the", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "bonds and note in full in August 2018 and to pay interest", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11642 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2025 Page: 3 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "4 Opinion of the Court 24-11642", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "semi-annually starting in February 2018. The FAAs contained a", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "provision waiving Venezuela’s immunity from suit as to the", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "securities.", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "Casa owned a beneficial interest in the bonds in the principal", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "amount of $1,845,000, as well as a beneficial interest in the note in", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "the principal amount of $27,170,000, which entitled it to", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "$125,690.63 per interest payment for the bonds and $1,850,956.25", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "per interest payment for the note. Casa stated that Venezuela", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "defaulted on the bonds and note when, in 2018, it failed to repay", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "the principal and make the required interest payments on time. It", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "added that interest on principal would continue to accrue until", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "Venezuela repaid the principal in full.", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "In the New York case, Casa asserted two claims of breach of", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "contract against Venezuela based on the bonds and note. Casa", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "contended that it was entitled to its beneficial interest in the", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "principal of the bonds and note plus any accrued interest, costs, and", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "attorney’s fees. Casa moved for summary judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "B. 2020 New York Judgment Against Venezuela", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "In a September 2020 order, the district court in New York", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "granted summary judgment to Casa as well as to other different", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "plaintiffs with identical claims in separate suits. The district court", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "concluded that (1) Venezuela validly waived its immunity from", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) in the", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "FAAs, and (2) Casa was entitled to its requested relief.", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "On November 23, 2020, the district court entered a final", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "judgment against Venezuela in favor of Casa (“New York", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11642 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2025 Page: 4 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "24-11642 Opinion of the Court 5", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "judgment”).1 The judgment stated that Casa was entitled to a total", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "of $43,360,535.19 plus post-judgment interest from Venezuela.", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "In June 2021, in New York, Casa filed a motion under 28", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "U.S.C. § 1610(c) seeking to execute the judgment against", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "Venezuela’s assets because Venezuela failed to satisfy the", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "judgment within a reasonable period of time. The district court", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "granted Casa’s motion because Venezuela had not made any", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "payments towards the New York judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "II. CASA’S FLORIDA LAWSUIT", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "In August 2021, Casa registered the New York judgment in", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "federal court in the Southern District of Florida. Casa then filed a", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "motion to commence supplementary proceedings pursuant to Fla.", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "Stat. § 56.29. That Florida statute allows a judgment creditor", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "(Casa) to execute an unsatisfied judgment against property of the", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "judgment debtor (Venezuela) even if it is in the hands of a third", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "party. Fla. Stat. § 56.29. A year later, in September 2022, Casa", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "amended the motion.2 In its amended motion, Casa sought to", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "execute the New York judgment against eight real properties that", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "1 The November 23 judgment was an amended judgment that only differed", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "from the initial judgment in that it included a specified amount of costs and", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "attorney’s fees to be awarded to Casa to which the parties stipulated.", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "2 Casa’s initial and amended motions are for the most part substantively the", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "same, with the primary differences being that in the amended motion Casa", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "sought for the first time to implead an additional defendant, added allegations", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "to establish that the district court had personal jurisdiction over Gorrin, and", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "included further arguments in support of its claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11642 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2025 Page: 5 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "6 Opinion of the Court 24-11642", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "it claimed, under a constructive-trust theory, belonged to", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "Venezuela under 28 U.S.C. § 1610(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a) and Fla.", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "Stat. § 56.29.", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "A. Casa Impleads Nine Third-Party Defendants", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "Casa’s amended motion sought to implead as third-party", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "defendants three individuals and six corporate entities, to", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "wit: (1) Gorrin, (2) Alejandro Andrade Cedeno (“Andrade”),", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "(3) Claudia Patricia Diaz Guillen (“Diaz”), (4) RIM Group", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "Investments Corp., (5) RIM Group Investments I Corp., (6) RIM", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "Group Investments II Corp., (7) RIM Group Investments III Corp.,", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "(8) Posh 8 Dynamic Inc., and (9) Planet 2 Reaching Inc. Casa asked", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "the district court to issue statutory notices to appear to these", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "third-party defendants.", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "Specifically, Casa’s amended motion sought to execute the", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "New York judgment, under a constructive-trust theory, against", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "eight real properties located in Miami, Florida, owned by the", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "corporate defendants. Here is a summary of the complicated facts", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "Casa alleged to support its constructive-trust theory.", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "B. Casa’s Alleged Bribery Scheme by Gorrin and Others", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "The Venezuelan National Treasury, known in Spanish as", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "the Oficina Nacional del Tesoro (“ONT”), sold Venezuelan bonds", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "denominated in U.S. dollars and other foreign currencies. The", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "ONT then exchanged the foreign-currency proceeds generated", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "from the bond sales into the Venezuelan national currency,", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "bolivares, through either (1) the Venezuelan National Bank or", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "(2) brokerage firms called “casas de bolsa,” at a government", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11642 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2025 Page: 6 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "24-11642 Opinion of the Court 7", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "exchange rate. However, the casas de bolsa had access to a “black", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "market” exchange rate that was higher than the government rate.", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "This allowed the casas de bolsa “to sell the preferential dollars at", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "the higher rate and retain massive profits from the spread.” Only", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "ONT-approved casas de bolsa could conduct the currency", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "exchanges for the Venezuelan government.", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "Gorrin controlled one of the ONT-approved casas de bolsa.", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "From 2008 through 2017, Gorrin allegedly paid hundreds of", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "millions of dollars in bribes to Andrade, the Venezuelan National", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "Treasurer from 2007 through 2011, to secure foreign-currency", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "exchange contracts with the Venezuelan government. Casa", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "asserted that these contracts—awarded in exchange for", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "bribes—breached Andrade’s fiduciary duties to the Venezuelan", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "government. The awarded contracts allowed Andrade and Gorrin", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of the Venezuelan", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "government and people.", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "When Andrade stepped down from his position as National", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "Treasurer, Andrade introduced Gorrin to his successor, Diaz.", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "While Gorrin continued paying bribes to Andrade, Gorrin started", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "paying bribes to Diaz through her husband for the same purpose.", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "Casa asserted that Diaz also breached her fiduciary duties to", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "Venezuela by accepting Gorrin’s bribes.", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "The U.S. government indicted Andrade, Gorrin, Diaz, and", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "Diaz’s husband for their roles in the bribery scheme and the", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "laundering of money obtained through the scheme into the United", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11642 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2025 Page: 7 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "8 Opinion of the Court 24-11642", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "States. Gorrin was never arrested and remains a fugitive. Andrade,", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "Diaz, and Diaz’s husband were convicted.", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "In January 2019, the U.S. Department of the Treasury Office", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) sanctioned Gorrin for his role", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "in the bribery scheme by placing him on the Specially Designated", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "Nationals and Blocked Persons List. OFAC also designated as", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "beneficiaries of the scheme the six corporate defendants here,", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "which Casa alleged were owned or controlled by Gorrin and his", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "wife. Those sanctions blocked the sale or transfer of the properties", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "without a license issued by OFAC. Casa conceded that it did not", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "have an OFAC license at that time but argued that it did not need", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "one until the eventual execution sale of the properties.", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "C. Alleged Constructive Trust Against Eight Properties", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "Casa then alleged that Gorrin purchased the eight real", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "properties between 2008 and 2016 through the six corporate", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "defendants using funds Gorrin misappropriated from Venezuela", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "through the bribery scheme. As support, Casa retained a forensic", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "accountant who prepared a report that concluded that Gorrin had", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "purchased the eight real properties using the funds he obtained", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "through the bribery scheme. The report was based on the facts", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "that (1) OFAC had designated the eight real properties as part of its", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "sanctions against Gorrin, and (2) Gorrin acquired the properties", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "after the commencement of the bribery scheme.", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "Casa argued that Fla. Stat. § 56.29 allowed it to execute the", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "New York judgment against the eight properties even though they", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "were owned by Gorrin’s corporations because they actually", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11642 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2025 Page: 8 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "24-11642 Opinion of the Court 9", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "belonged to Venezuela. And Casa alleged that those properties", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "were not entitled to immunity from execution under the FSIA.", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "Casa asserted that the properties belonged to Venezuela under the", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "Florida-law constructive-trust doctrine because (1) Andrade and", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "Diaz breached their fiduciary obligations to Venezuela by", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "accepting Gorrin’s bribes in exchange for providing him with the", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "foreign-currency exchange contracts; (2) Andrade, Diaz, and", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "Gorrin were unjustly enriched through this scheme at the expense", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "of Venezuela; (3) Andrade and Diaz conferred a benefit to Gorrin", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "by allowing him to conduct the exchange transactions illegally at a", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "profit; and (4) during 2008 to 2016 Gorrin used the misappropriated", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "funds to purchase the eight properties in Florida through the six", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "corporate defendants.", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "Casa’s amended motion also alleged that Gorrin was “a", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "trustee ex maleficio because he obtained Venezuelan funds with", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "actual knowledge that a breach of trust was being committed by", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "Andrade.” Casa alleged that Gorrin was accountable for", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "participating in Andrade’s and Diaz’s breaches of trust to the", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "Venezuelan government because he committed overt acts in", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "furtherance of these trust breaches with knowledge that the trust", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "breaches were being committed. For those reasons, Casa", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "concluded that it had established every element for the imposition", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "of a constructive trust as to the eight real properties under", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "Florida law.", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11642 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2025 Page: 9 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "10 Opinion of the Court 24-11642", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "D. District Court’s Order Granting Casa’s Amended Motion", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "In a September 2022 order, the district court granted Casa’s", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "motion to commence the supplementary proceedings and issued", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "notices to appear to the proposed third-party defendants. The", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "order directed the third-party defendants to respond to Casa’s", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "motion and explain why the properties should not be applied to", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "satisfy the New York judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "E. Third-Party Defendants’ Motions for Judgment on the", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "Pleadings", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "Gorrin and the corporate defendants filed a response", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "denying Casa’s allegations and raising multiple jurisdictional,", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "immunity, and other bars to Casa’s amended motion.", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "Later on, Gorrin moved for judgment on the pleadings. He", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "argued that (1) Casa failed to properly serve him, and (2) Casa", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "failed to establish that the district court had personal jurisdiction", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "over him.", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "Additionally, in a separate motion, Gorrin and the six", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "corporate defendants jointly moved for judgment on the pleadings", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "on alternative grounds. Their motion argued that (1) the district", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "court lacked ancillary jurisdiction over the action under Peacock v.", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "Thomas, 516 U.S. 349 (1996) (“Peacock”); (2) Casa lacked standing to", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "bring its constructive-trust claim against them on Venezuela’s", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "behalf; (3) even assuming that the relevant properties belonged to", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "Venezuela, the properties were immune from attachment and", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "execution under the FSIA; (4) Casa’s execution efforts were", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "prohibited by the OFAC sanctions; (5) Casa’s claim was barred by", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11642 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2025 Page: 10 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "24-11642 Opinion of the Court 11", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "the act of state doctrine because it required the court to invalidate", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "the foreign-currency exchange transactions at the heart of the", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "bribery scheme, which were sovereign acts of Venezuela; and", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "(6) Casa failed to allege a viable constructive-trust theory because", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "it did not establish a financial link between the misappropriated", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "funds and the purchase of the relevant properties.3", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "F. Report and Recommendation", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "In a report and recommendation (“R&R”), the magistrate", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "judge recommended that the district court (1) grant in part", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "Gorrin’s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on lack of", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "service and personal jurisdiction and (2) grant in part Gorrin and", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "the corporate defendants’ joint motion for judgment on the", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "pleadings.", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "Specifically, the magistrate judge determined, among other", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "things, that the district court lacked ancillary jurisdiction over the", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "proceedings under Peacock. In Peacock, the Supreme Court held", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "that district courts could not exercise “ancillary jurisdiction in a", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "subsequent lawsuit to impose an obligation to pay an existing", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "federal judgment on a person not already liable for that judgment.”", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "516 U.S. at 357. The Supreme Court concluded that the district", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "court in the case before it lacked ancillary jurisdiction because the", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "plaintiff was attempting to execute a judgment in a subsequent", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "3 Andrade, Diaz, and Venezuela did not respond to Casa’s amended motion,", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "and Casa obtained default judgments against Andrade and Diaz and a partial", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "default judgment against Venezuela. Andrade, Diaz, and Venezuela did not", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11642 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2025 Page: 11 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "12 Opinion of the Court 24-11642", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "lawsuit against an individual not already liable for that judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "based on new facts and law not at issue in the initial action that", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "produced the judgment. Id. at 358-59.", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "The magistrate judge concluded that the district court", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "lacked ancillary jurisdiction under Peacock because Casa was", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "attempting to execute a judgment against third parties who had", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "never been held liable for that judgment on the global bonds and", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "global note. The magistrate judge also distinguished this case from", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "National Maritime Services, Inc. v. Straub, 776 F.3d 783 (11th Cir.", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "2015) (“Straub”), because that decision concerned a", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "fraudulent-transfer claim rather than a constructive-trust claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "The magistrate judge also found that Casa failed to establish", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "personal jurisdiction over Gorrin for several reasons. The", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "magistrate judge pointed out that Casa had relied on subsections of", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "Florida’s long-arm statute concerning a nonresident defendant’s", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "business activity and tortious conduct in Florida. However, Casa", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "did not adequately allege that Gorrin committed a tortious act", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "within Florida because the bribery and illegal profits occurred in", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "Venezuela, not Florida.", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "Additionally, the magistrate judge concluded that Casa", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "failed to allege adequately that Gorrin conducted business in", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "Florida. Casa failed to link any of the tortious conduct—the", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "allegedly misappropriated Venezuelan funds—to the eight", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "properties, which was necessary for it to prove its", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "constructive-trust claim. Lastly, the magistrate judge stated that", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11642 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2025 Page: 12 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "24-11642 Opinion of the Court 13", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "exercise of personal jurisdiction did not comport with the Due", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "Process Clause.", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "Casa filed objections to the R&R.", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "G. District Court’s Order", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "On April 24, 2024, the district court adopted in part the R&R", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "and granted in part defendant Gorrin’s motion for judgment on the", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "pleadings based on lack of service and personal jurisdiction. The", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "district court also granted in part Gorrin and the corporate", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "defendants’ joint motion for judgment on the pleadings on", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "multiple grounds, including lack of ancillary jurisdiction.4 The", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "district court agreed with the magistrate judge on all but one of the", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "issues raised by the defendants.", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "In relevant part here, the district court agreed with the", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "magistrate judge that it lacked ancillary jurisdiction under the", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "Supreme Court’s Peacock decision because Casa was effectively", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "attempting to impose liability for the New York judgment on", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "Gorrin and the corporate defendants. The district court explained", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "that Gorrin and the corporate defendants had never been held", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "liable for the New York judgment based on the unpaid global bonds", "paragraph_id": "para_344" }, { "text": "and global note. Rather, the whole basis for Casa’s action was to", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "establish the bribery scheme and a link between the", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "misappropriated Venezuelan funds and the Florida properties in an", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "4 The district court also affirmed an order issued by the magistrate judge deny-", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "ing a motion filed by Casa seeking to extend notices of lis pendens as to the real", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "properties.", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11642 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2025 Page: 13 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_351" }, { "text": "14 Opinion of the Court 24-11642", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "effort to impose a constructive trust against the properties.", "paragraph_id": "para_353" }, { "text": "Because the Florida proceedings were based on different parties,", "paragraph_id": "para_354" }, { "text": "facts, and legal theories than the New York lawsuit, the district", "paragraph_id": "para_355" }, { "text": "court concluded that Peacock prohibited the exercise of ancillary", "paragraph_id": "para_356" }, { "text": "jurisdiction. The district court also declined to address new", "paragraph_id": "para_357" }, { "text": "jurisdictional arguments raised by Casa for the first time in its", "paragraph_id": "para_358" }, { "text": "objections to the R&R.", "paragraph_id": "para_359" }, { "text": "The district court also agreed with the R&R’s finding that it", "paragraph_id": "para_360" }, { "text": "lacked personal jurisdiction over Gorrin because Casa’s allegations", "paragraph_id": "para_361" }, { "text": "were insufficient to establish that Gorrin conducted business in", "paragraph_id": "para_362" }, { "text": "Florida by renting the relevant properties for profit. It also stated", "paragraph_id": "para_363" }, { "text": "that Casa failed to establish connexity between Gorrin’s alleged", "paragraph_id": "para_364" }, { "text": "tortious conduct and the relevant properties to support a finding of", "paragraph_id": "para_365" }, { "text": "personal jurisdiction.", "paragraph_id": "para_366" }, { "text": "Casa timely appealed.", "paragraph_id": "para_367" }, { "text": "III. DISCUSSION", "paragraph_id": "para_368" }, { "text": "Federal courts can act only if they have subject matter", "paragraph_id": "para_369" }, { "text": "jurisdiction. See Santiago-Lugo v. Warden, 785 F.3d 467, 471 (11th", "paragraph_id": "para_370" }, { "text": "Cir. 2015). At the outset, we are thus obligated to determine", "paragraph_id": "para_371" }, { "text": "whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction before we", "paragraph_id": "para_372" }, { "text": "can address the merits of this appeal. Id. We review de novo the", "paragraph_id": "para_373" }, { "text": "district court’s conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.", "paragraph_id": "para_374" }, { "text": "Holston Invs., Inc. B.V.I. v. LanLogistics Corp., 677 F.3d 1068, 1070", "paragraph_id": "para_375" }, { "text": "(11th Cir. 2012).", "paragraph_id": "para_376" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11642 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2025 Page: 14 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_377" }, { "text": "24-11642 Opinion of the Court 15", "paragraph_id": "para_378" }, { "text": "A. Ancillary Jurisdiction", "paragraph_id": "para_379" }, { "text": "“[I]nferior federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.”", "paragraph_id": "para_380" }, { "text": "Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 409 (11th Cir. 1999).", "paragraph_id": "para_381" }, { "text": "As such, federal district courts “are empowered to hear only those", "paragraph_id": "para_382" }, { "text": "cases within the judicial power of the United States as defined by", "paragraph_id": "para_383" }, { "text": "Article III of the Constitution, and which have been entrusted to", "paragraph_id": "para_384" }, { "text": "them by a jurisdictional grant authorized by Congress.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_385" }, { "text": "(quotation marks omitted). Typically, where a federal court has", "paragraph_id": "para_386" }, { "text": "jurisdiction over a case, and a final judgment is entered in that case,", "paragraph_id": "para_387" }, { "text": "the court’s jurisdiction to act is over. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life", "paragraph_id": "para_388" }, { "text": "Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994).", "paragraph_id": "para_389" }, { "text": "But in narrow circumstances, federal courts may exercise", "paragraph_id": "para_390" }, { "text": "what is termed “ancillary jurisdiction.” Id. at 378-79. Under the", "paragraph_id": "para_391" }, { "text": "doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction, federal courts may exercise", "paragraph_id": "para_392" }, { "text": "jurisdiction “over some matters (otherwise beyond their", "paragraph_id": "para_393" }, { "text": "competence) that are incidental to other matters properly before", "paragraph_id": "para_394" }, { "text": "them.” Id. at 378. The Supreme Court has explained that ancillary", "paragraph_id": "para_395" }, { "text": "jurisdiction exists in two circumstances: “(1) to permit disposition", "paragraph_id": "para_396" }, { "text": "by a single court of claims that are, in varying respects and degrees,", "paragraph_id": "para_397" }, { "text": "factually interdependent; and (2) to enable a court to function", "paragraph_id": "para_398" }, { "text": "successfully, that is, to manage its proceedings, vindicate its", "paragraph_id": "para_399" }, { "text": "authority, and effectuate its decrees.” Id. at 379-80 (citations", "paragraph_id": "para_400" }, { "text": "omitted). Simply put, federal courts have ancillary jurisdiction to", "paragraph_id": "para_401" }, { "text": "(1) dispose of factually dependent claims, and (2) effectuate their", "paragraph_id": "para_402" }, { "text": "decrees or judgments.", "paragraph_id": "para_403" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11642 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2025 Page: 15 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_404" }, { "text": "16 Opinion of the Court 24-11642", "paragraph_id": "para_405" }, { "text": "Under the second category, “ancillary jurisdiction [may be", "paragraph_id": "para_406" }, { "text": "used] in subsequent proceedings for the exercise of a federal court’s", "paragraph_id": "para_407" }, { "text": "inherent power to enforce its judgments.” Peacock, 516 U.S. at 356.", "paragraph_id": "para_408" }, { "text": "“In defining that power, [the Supreme Court] ha[s] approved the", "paragraph_id": "para_409" }, { "text": "exercise of ancillary jurisdiction over a broad range of", "paragraph_id": "para_410" }, { "text": "supplementary proceedings involving third parties to assist in the", "paragraph_id": "para_411" }, { "text": "protection and enforcement of federal judgments—including", "paragraph_id": "para_412" }, { "text": "attachment, mandamus, garnishment, and the prejudgment", "paragraph_id": "para_413" }, { "text": "avoidance of fraudulent conveyances.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_414" }, { "text": "But ancillary jurisdiction does not extend to supplementary", "paragraph_id": "para_415" }, { "text": "proceedings “to impose an obligation to pay an existing federal", "paragraph_id": "para_416" }, { "text": "judgment on a person not already liable for that judgment” or to", "paragraph_id": "para_417" }, { "text": "exercise “jurisdiction over proceedings that are entirely new and", "paragraph_id": "para_418" }, { "text": "original.” Id. at 357-58 (quotation marks and citations omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_419" }, { "text": "Moreover, ancillary jurisdiction is not applicable “where the relief", "paragraph_id": "para_420" }, { "text": "sought is of a different kind or on a different principle than that of", "paragraph_id": "para_421" }, { "text": "the prior decree.” Id. at 358 (quotation marks and citations", "paragraph_id": "para_422" }, { "text": "omitted) (alteration adopted). It does not extend to supplementary", "paragraph_id": "para_423" }, { "text": "proceedings “founded . . . upon entirely new theories of", "paragraph_id": "para_424" }, { "text": "liability.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_425" }, { "text": "The Supreme Court addressed the limits of ancillary", "paragraph_id": "para_426" }, { "text": "jurisdiction in Peacock, which we review in detail.", "paragraph_id": "para_427" }, { "text": "B. Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349 (1996)", "paragraph_id": "para_428" }, { "text": "In Peacock v. Thomas, a plaintiff sued his former employer", "paragraph_id": "para_429" }, { "text": "and an officer and shareholder of the employer under the", "paragraph_id": "para_430" }, { "text": "Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). Id. at 351.", "paragraph_id": "para_431" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11642 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2025 Page: 16 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_432" }, { "text": "24-11642 Opinion of the Court 17", "paragraph_id": "para_433" }, { "text": "The plaintiff alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary", "paragraph_id": "para_434" }, { "text": "duties in their administration of a pension benefits plan. Id. The", "paragraph_id": "para_435" }, { "text": "district court entered a money judgment against the employer but", "paragraph_id": "para_436" }, { "text": "concluded that the officer/shareholder was not a fiduciary and so", "paragraph_id": "para_437" }, { "text": "not personally liable. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_438" }, { "text": "The plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to collect the", "paragraph_id": "para_439" }, { "text": "judgment from the employer. Id. at 352. The plaintiff then sued", "paragraph_id": "para_440" }, { "text": "the officer/shareholder in federal court, claiming that the", "paragraph_id": "para_441" }, { "text": "officer/shareholder “had entered into a civil conspiracy to siphon", "paragraph_id": "para_442" }, { "text": "assets from [the employer] to prevent satisfaction of the ERISA", "paragraph_id": "para_443" }, { "text": "judgment.” Id. Specifically, the plaintiff sought to execute the", "paragraph_id": "para_444" }, { "text": "judgment against the officer/shareholder by asserting claims of", "paragraph_id": "para_445" }, { "text": "“pierc[ing] the corporate veil” and fraudulent transfer. Id. The", "paragraph_id": "para_446" }, { "text": "district court entered judgment against the officer/shareholder for", "paragraph_id": "para_447" }, { "text": "the full amount of the initial money judgment even though the", "paragraph_id": "para_448" }, { "text": "total amount of the alleged fraudulent transfers was less than the", "paragraph_id": "para_449" }, { "text": "judgment. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_450" }, { "text": "The Supreme Court held that the district court lacked", "paragraph_id": "para_451" }, { "text": "subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 352-60. The Court first concluded", "paragraph_id": "para_452" }, { "text": "that ERISA and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 did not provide the district court", "paragraph_id": "para_453" }, { "text": "with jurisdiction. Id. at 352-54. The Court then held that the", "paragraph_id": "para_454" }, { "text": "district court also lacked ancillary jurisdiction for several reasons.", "paragraph_id": "para_455" }, { "text": "Id. at 354-60.", "paragraph_id": "para_456" }, { "text": "The Supreme Court first explained that it had “never", "paragraph_id": "para_457" }, { "text": "authorized the exercise of ancillary jurisdiction in a subsequent", "paragraph_id": "para_458" }, { "text": "lawsuit to impose an obligation to pay an existing federal judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_459" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11642 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2025 Page: 17 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_460" }, { "text": "18 Opinion of the Court 24-11642", "paragraph_id": "para_461" }, { "text": "on a person not already liable for that judgment.” Id. at 357. Next,", "paragraph_id": "para_462" }, { "text": "the Supreme Court stated that ancillary jurisdiction should not be", "paragraph_id": "para_463" }, { "text": "exercised in the second lawsuit because it was “founded not only", "paragraph_id": "para_464" }, { "text": "upon different facts than the ERISA suit, but also upon entirely new", "paragraph_id": "para_465" }, { "text": "theories of liability.” Id. at 358. In the second suit, the employee", "paragraph_id": "para_466" }, { "text": "“alleged civil conspiracy and fraudulent transfer of [the employer’s]", "paragraph_id": "para_467" }, { "text": "assets, but . . . no substantive ERISA violation.” Id. The claims in", "paragraph_id": "para_468" }, { "text": "the second suit—“civil conspiracy, fraudulent conveyance, and", "paragraph_id": "para_469" }, { "text": "‘veil-piercing’—all involved new theories of liability not asserted in", "paragraph_id": "para_470" }, { "text": "the ERISA suit.” Id. at 358-59. The Supreme Court added that,", "paragraph_id": "para_471" }, { "text": "other than the money judgment itself, the enforcement action had", "paragraph_id": "para_472" }, { "text": "“little connection” to the initial action. Id. at 359.", "paragraph_id": "para_473" }, { "text": "The Supreme Court distinguished the case before it from", "paragraph_id": "para_474" }, { "text": "cases in which it had concluded that ancillary enforcement", "paragraph_id": "para_475" }, { "text": "jurisdiction existed because the latter “merely required compliance", "paragraph_id": "para_476" }, { "text": "with the existing judgment[s] by the persons with authority to", "paragraph_id": "para_477" }, { "text": "comply.” Id. at 358. The Court made clear that in those cases it", "paragraph_id": "para_478" }, { "text": "did not “authorize the shifting of liability for payment of the", "paragraph_id": "para_479" }, { "text": "judgment from the judgment debtor to” third parties, as the", "paragraph_id": "para_480" }, { "text": "plaintiff was attempting to do. Id. It also “cautioned against the", "paragraph_id": "para_481" }, { "text": "exercise of jurisdiction over proceedings that are entirely new and", "paragraph_id": "para_482" }, { "text": "original or where the relief sought is of a different kind or on a", "paragraph_id": "para_483" }, { "text": "different principle than that of the prior decree.” Id. (quotation", "paragraph_id": "para_484" }, { "text": "marks and citations omitted) (alteration adopted).", "paragraph_id": "para_485" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11642 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2025 Page: 18 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_486" }, { "text": "24-11642 Opinion of the Court 19", "paragraph_id": "para_487" }, { "text": "C. National Maritime Services, Inc. v. Straub, 776 F.3d 783 (11th", "paragraph_id": "para_488" }, { "text": "Cir. 2015)", "paragraph_id": "para_489" }, { "text": "Subsequent to Peacock, this Court recently discussed", "paragraph_id": "para_490" }, { "text": "ancillary jurisdiction in Straub, which we review.", "paragraph_id": "para_491" }, { "text": "In Straub, this Court applied Peacock in determining whether", "paragraph_id": "para_492" }, { "text": "a district court had ancillary jurisdiction over a Fla. Stat. § 56.29", "paragraph_id": "para_493" }, { "text": "supplementary proceeding. In that case, a plaintiff sued Burrell", "paragraph_id": "para_494" }, { "text": "Shipping Company and its president for breach of contract and", "paragraph_id": "para_495" }, { "text": "unjust enrichment. Straub, 776 F.3d at 785. The plaintiff obtained", "paragraph_id": "para_496" }, { "text": "a money judgment against Burrell Shipping but was unable to hold", "paragraph_id": "para_497" }, { "text": "the president individually liable. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_498" }, { "text": "While the action was pending, Burrell Shipping sold its sole", "paragraph_id": "para_499" }, { "text": "asset to a third party and transferred the proceeds of the sale to the", "paragraph_id": "para_500" }, { "text": "president. Id. The plaintiff attempted to execute the money", "paragraph_id": "para_501" }, { "text": "judgment against Burrell Shipping but was unsuccessful because it", "paragraph_id": "para_502" }, { "text": "had no assets after the sale and transfer. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_503" }, { "text": "The plaintiff then initiated § 56.29 supplementary", "paragraph_id": "para_504" }, { "text": "proceedings in federal court against the president in an attempt to", "paragraph_id": "para_505" }, { "text": "void the transfer, arguing that it was a fraudulent attempt to avoid", "paragraph_id": "para_506" }, { "text": "payment of the judgment. Id. The plaintiff initiated the", "paragraph_id": "para_507" }, { "text": "supplementary proceedings under a provision of § 56.29 that", "paragraph_id": "para_508" }, { "text": "specifically concerned fraudulent-transfer claims. Id. That", "paragraph_id": "para_509" }, { "text": "provision in § 56.29 expressly allows a court to void “any gift,", "paragraph_id": "para_510" }, { "text": "transfer, assignment or other conveyance of personal property", "paragraph_id": "para_511" }, { "text": "[that] has been made or contrived by the judgment debtor to delay,", "paragraph_id": "para_512" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11642 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2025 Page: 19 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_513" }, { "text": "20 Opinion of the Court 24-11642", "paragraph_id": "para_514" }, { "text": "hinder, or defraud creditors[.]” Fla. Stat. § 56.29(3)(b).5 The district", "paragraph_id": "para_515" }, { "text": "court concluded that the transfer was fraudulent and entered", "paragraph_id": "para_516" }, { "text": "judgment against the president in the amount of the initial money", "paragraph_id": "para_517" }, { "text": "judgment, which was less than the total amount of the transferred", "paragraph_id": "para_518" }, { "text": "assets. See Straub, 776 F.3d at 785-86.", "paragraph_id": "para_519" }, { "text": "This Court held that the district court had ancillary", "paragraph_id": "para_520" }, { "text": "jurisdiction over the supplementary proceedings. Id. at 786-88. We", "paragraph_id": "para_521" }, { "text": "reasoned that, unlike in Peacock, the plaintiff was seeking to", "paragraph_id": "para_522" }, { "text": "“disgorge [the company’s president] of a fraudulently transferred", "paragraph_id": "para_523" }, { "text": "asset, not to impose liability for a judgment on a third party.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_524" }, { "text": "at 787. This Court explained that the president was not personally", "paragraph_id": "para_525" }, { "text": "liable for the initial money judgment, but rather his liability was", "paragraph_id": "para_526" }, { "text": "limited to the proceeds that Burrell Shipping fraudulently", "paragraph_id": "para_527" }, { "text": "transferred to him. Id. This Court emphasized that, if the value of", "paragraph_id": "para_528" }, { "text": "the transferred proceeds was less than the value of the judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_529" }, { "text": "against Burrell Shipping, the plaintiff would have no recourse", "paragraph_id": "para_530" }, { "text": "against the president for the excess amount. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_531" }, { "text": "D. Analysis", "paragraph_id": "para_532" }, { "text": "Applying this precedent, we readily conclude that the", "paragraph_id": "para_533" }, { "text": "district court lacked ancillary jurisdiction over Casa’s", "paragraph_id": "para_534" }, { "text": "5 When Straub was decided, the fraudulent-transfer provision of Fla. Stat.", "paragraph_id": "para_535" }, { "text": "§ 56.29 was located at subsection (6)(b). See Fla. Stat. § 56.29(6)(b) (2014).", "paragraph_id": "para_536" }, { "text": "However, in 2016, the fraudulent-transfer provision was moved to subsection", "paragraph_id": "para_537" }, { "text": "(3)(b). See id. § 56.29(3)(b) (2016). The substance of the provision did not", "paragraph_id": "para_538" }, { "text": "change.", "paragraph_id": "para_539" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11642 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2025 Page: 20 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_540" }, { "text": "24-11642 Opinion of the Court 21", "paragraph_id": "para_541" }, { "text": "supplementary proceedings under Fla. Stat. § 56.29 against", "paragraph_id": "para_542" }, { "text": "defendant Gorrin and the six corporate defendants.", "paragraph_id": "para_543" }, { "text": "First, a judgment did not already exist in favor of Venezuela", "paragraph_id": "para_544" }, { "text": "against defendants Gorrin and the corporate entities. Rather, Casa", "paragraph_id": "para_545" }, { "text": "was attempting to impose a judgment on third persons—Gorrin", "paragraph_id": "para_546" }, { "text": "and his companies—who did not already owe the New York", "paragraph_id": "para_547" }, { "text": "judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_548" }, { "text": "This is almost identical to the type of case in which the", "paragraph_id": "para_549" }, { "text": "Supreme Court explained that a district court would lack ancillary", "paragraph_id": "para_550" }, { "text": "jurisdiction to enforce a judgment. See Peacock, 516 U.S. at 356-59.", "paragraph_id": "para_551" }, { "text": "Casa was attempting “in a subsequent lawsuit to impose an", "paragraph_id": "para_552" }, { "text": "obligation to pay an existing federal judgment on a person not", "paragraph_id": "para_553" }, { "text": "already liable for that judgment.” Id. at 357. It was not merely", "paragraph_id": "para_554" }, { "text": "seeking “compliance with the existing judgment by the persons", "paragraph_id": "para_555" }, { "text": "with authority to comply,” but rather was asking the district court", "paragraph_id": "para_556" }, { "text": "to shift “liability for payment of the judgment from the judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_557" }, { "text": "debtor to” Gorrin and the corporate defendants by requiring them", "paragraph_id": "para_558" }, { "text": "to hand over the real properties. Id. at 358.", "paragraph_id": "para_559" }, { "text": "Second, the supplementary proceedings were “entirely new", "paragraph_id": "para_560" }, { "text": "and original” and sought relief “of a different kind or on a different", "paragraph_id": "para_561" }, { "text": "principle than that of the prior decree.” Id. (quotation marks", "paragraph_id": "para_562" }, { "text": "omitted). Casa obtained the New York judgment based on", "paragraph_id": "para_563" }, { "text": "Venezuela’s nonpayment of the bonds and the note. That", "paragraph_id": "para_564" }, { "text": "nonpayment has nothing to do, either factually or legally, with", "paragraph_id": "para_565" }, { "text": "Gorrin’s alleged bribery and currency-exchange scheme in", "paragraph_id": "para_566" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11642 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2025 Page: 21 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_567" }, { "text": "22 Opinion of the Court 24-11642", "paragraph_id": "para_568" }, { "text": "Venezuela or with Gorrin’s purchase of the real properties", "paragraph_id": "para_569" }, { "text": "in Florida.", "paragraph_id": "para_570" }, { "text": "We recognize that Casa’s Florida lawsuit was based on a", "paragraph_id": "para_571" }, { "text": "constructive-trust theory. Specifically, Casa attempted to execute", "paragraph_id": "para_572" }, { "text": "the New York judgment against the real properties purchased by", "paragraph_id": "para_573" }, { "text": "Gorrin through the corporate defendants by arguing that those", "paragraph_id": "para_574" }, { "text": "properties actually belonged to Venezuela under a", "paragraph_id": "para_575" }, { "text": "constructive-trust theory.6 Casa asserts three persons—Andrade,", "paragraph_id": "para_576" }, { "text": "Diaz, and Gorrin—siphoned off Venezuelan funds through bribes", "paragraph_id": "para_577" }, { "text": "and a currency-exchange scheme and then Gorrin used those funds", "paragraph_id": "para_578" }, { "text": "to buy properties in Florida. But that is a new theory against three", "paragraph_id": "para_579" }, { "text": "different people who had nothing to do with the nonpayment of", "paragraph_id": "para_580" }, { "text": "the bonds held by Casa.", "paragraph_id": "para_581" }, { "text": "Casa relies on Straub, but that decision is inapposite. First", "paragraph_id": "para_582" }, { "text": "and foremost, Casa did not assert a fraudulent-transfer claim", "paragraph_id": "para_583" }, { "text": "against Gorrin and the corporate defendants. Casa did not allege", "paragraph_id": "para_584" }, { "text": "that Venezuela transferred the Florida real properties to Gorrin and", "paragraph_id": "para_585" }, { "text": "the corporate defendants for the purpose of Venezuela’s avoiding", "paragraph_id": "para_586" }, { "text": "payment of the New York judgment. Venezuela, other than not", "paragraph_id": "para_587" }, { "text": "6 To establish a constructive trust under Florida law, Casa would be required", "paragraph_id": "para_588" }, { "text": "to show “(1) a promise, express or implied, (2) transfer of the property and", "paragraph_id": "para_589" }, { "text": "reliance thereon, (3) a confidential relationship, and (4) unjust enrichment.”", "paragraph_id": "para_590" }, { "text": "Bank of Am. v. Bank of Salem, 48 So. 3d 155, 158 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (quotation", "paragraph_id": "para_591" }, { "text": "marks omitted). The defendants argue that Casa’s motion failed to adequately", "paragraph_id": "para_592" }, { "text": "allege those elements, but we need not decide that issue.", "paragraph_id": "para_593" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11642 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2025 Page: 22 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_594" }, { "text": "24-11642 Opinion of the Court 23", "paragraph_id": "para_595" }, { "text": "paying the bonds, did not do anything to transfer any bond money", "paragraph_id": "para_596" }, { "text": "to the third-party defendants. This is not a fraudulent-transfer case.", "paragraph_id": "para_597" }, { "text": "We also reject Casa’s argument that its constructive-trust", "paragraph_id": "para_598" }, { "text": "claim is analogous to the fraudulent-transfer claim in Straub. In", "paragraph_id": "para_599" }, { "text": "Straub, the plaintiff sought to recover assets previously held by the", "paragraph_id": "para_600" }, { "text": "judgment debtor that it transferred to a third party for the purpose", "paragraph_id": "para_601" }, { "text": "of avoiding payment of the money judgment. But in this case, Casa", "paragraph_id": "para_602" }, { "text": "seeks to execute the New York judgment against properties held", "paragraph_id": "para_603" }, { "text": "by third parties, which Venezuela never possessed, based on facts", "paragraph_id": "para_604" }, { "text": "and law completely unrelated to the New York suit. Straub, 776", "paragraph_id": "para_605" }, { "text": "F.3d at 785-88. Further, the assets in Straub undeniably at one point", "paragraph_id": "para_606" }, { "text": "belonged to the judgment debtor. Id. But the only way that Casa", "paragraph_id": "para_607" }, { "text": "can show in this case that the real properties belonged to", "paragraph_id": "para_608" }, { "text": "Venezuela is first by proving Gorrin’s monetary liability for the", "paragraph_id": "para_609" }, { "text": "bribery and currency-exchange scheme and then by proving that", "paragraph_id": "para_610" }, { "text": "Gorrin used the specific funds that he obtained from that scheme", "paragraph_id": "para_611" }, { "text": "to purchase the eight properties.", "paragraph_id": "para_612" }, { "text": "It is true that, like in this case, the district court in Straub was", "paragraph_id": "para_613" }, { "text": "required to make factual and legal findings unrelated to the merits", "paragraph_id": "para_614" }, { "text": "of the initial lawsuit that produced the money judgment in order", "paragraph_id": "para_615" }, { "text": "to grant the plaintiff relief. See id. However, unlike in this case, the", "paragraph_id": "para_616" }, { "text": "fraudulent-transfer claim in Straub was directly tied to the district", "paragraph_id": "para_617" }, { "text": "court’s power to execute the money judgment. See id. The", "paragraph_id": "para_618" }, { "text": "fraudulent-transfer claim derived from the judgment debtor’s own", "paragraph_id": "para_619" }, { "text": "active attempts to avoid payment of the money judgment by", "paragraph_id": "para_620" }, { "text": "transferring assets to a third party, who was also a defendant in the", "paragraph_id": "para_621" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11642 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2025 Page: 23 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_622" }, { "text": "24 Opinion of the Court 24-11642", "paragraph_id": "para_623" }, { "text": "initial lawsuit. Id. at 785-86. Therefore, the district court’s ancillary", "paragraph_id": "para_624" }, { "text": "enforcement jurisdiction in Straub stemmed from its power to", "paragraph_id": "para_625" }, { "text": "“vindicate its authority” and “effectuate its decrees.” Kokkonen, 511", "paragraph_id": "para_626" }, { "text": "U.S. at 380.", "paragraph_id": "para_627" }, { "text": "In stark contrast, Casa’s constructive-trust claim has nothing", "paragraph_id": "para_628" }, { "text": "to do with the New York judgment and instead is simply an", "paragraph_id": "para_629" }, { "text": "attempt to shift Venezuela’s liability for that judgment to Gorrin", "paragraph_id": "para_630" }, { "text": "and the corporate defendants based on completely new facts and", "paragraph_id": "para_631" }, { "text": "legal theories. Casa’s constructive-trust suit is more like a wholly", "paragraph_id": "para_632" }, { "text": "independent substantive action than an action filed for the limited", "paragraph_id": "para_633" }, { "text": "purpose of “enabl[ing] [the] court to function successfully.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_634" }, { "text": "In sum, this case is like Peacock, not Straub. And the district", "paragraph_id": "para_635" }, { "text": "court clearly lacked ancillary jurisdiction over the supplementary", "paragraph_id": "para_636" }, { "text": "proceedings.", "paragraph_id": "para_637" }, { "text": "E. No Alternative Jurisdiction Alleged", "paragraph_id": "para_638" }, { "text": "As a final matter, we note that the fact that the district court", "paragraph_id": "para_639" }, { "text": "lacked ancillary jurisdiction does not necessarily mean that it lacked", "paragraph_id": "para_640" }, { "text": "subject matter jurisdiction altogether. Rather, it simply means that", "paragraph_id": "para_641" }, { "text": "the district court needed to have a basis for jurisdiction", "paragraph_id": "para_642" }, { "text": "independent of the New York lawsuit and judgment to rule on the", "paragraph_id": "para_643" }, { "text": "merits of this case. See, e.g., Jackson-Platts v. Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp.,", "paragraph_id": "para_644" }, { "text": "727 F.3d 1127, 1132, 1134 (11th Cir. 2013) (noting that a district", "paragraph_id": "para_645" }, { "text": "court had diversity jurisdiction over claims asserted in Fla. Stat.", "paragraph_id": "para_646" }, { "text": "§ 56.29 supplementary proceedings).", "paragraph_id": "para_647" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11642 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2025 Page: 24 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_648" }, { "text": "24-11642 Opinion of the Court 25", "paragraph_id": "para_649" }, { "text": "In its appellate briefs, however, Casa did not set forth or", "paragraph_id": "para_650" }, { "text": "argue any alternative substantive ground for the district court’s", "paragraph_id": "para_651" }, { "text": "subject matter jurisdiction. And we have found none.7", "paragraph_id": "para_652" }, { "text": "IV. CONCLUSION", "paragraph_id": "para_653" }, { "text": "We affirm the district court’s ruling that it lacked ancillary", "paragraph_id": "para_654" }, { "text": "jurisdiction over the supplementary proceedings. Because the", "paragraph_id": "para_655" }, { "text": "district court lacked jurisdiction, we vacate the district court’s", "paragraph_id": "para_656" }, { "text": "alternative merits rulings and remand with instructions to the", "paragraph_id": "para_657" }, { "text": "district court to reenter judgment dismissing the action without", "paragraph_id": "para_658" }, { "text": "prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See DiMaio v.", "paragraph_id": "para_659" }, { "text": "Democratic Nat’l Comm., 520 F.3d 1299, 1303 (11th Cir. 2008).", "paragraph_id": "para_660" }, { "text": "AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND", "paragraph_id": "para_661" }, { "text": "REMANDED.", "paragraph_id": "para_662" }, { "text": "7 Further, at oral argument, Casa conceded that its argument as to the district", "paragraph_id": "para_663" }, { "text": "court’s jurisdiction was based solely on ancillary jurisdiction.", "paragraph_id": "para_664" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11642 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2025 Page: 25 of 25", "paragraph_id": "para_665" } ], "word_count": 5966, "cites": [ "516 U.S. 349", "511 U.S. 375", "776 F.3d 783", "785 F.3d 467", "677 F.3d 1068", "168 F.3d 405", "727 F.3d 1127", "520 F.3d 1299" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "066885d958cc55ecab36b1f2adbf5e72066d82286c9a3f7882be42f5f53f488a", "source_url": "http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202411642.pdf", "fetched_at": "2026-10-02T23:52:40.616+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca11-24-11642-2025-10-29", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca11-24-11642-2025-10-29", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca11-24-11642-2025-10-29", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca11-24-11642-2025-10-29", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "066885d958cc55ecab36b1f2adbf5e72066d82286c9a3f7882be42f5f53f488a", "recomputed_sha256": "066885d958cc55ecab36b1f2adbf5e72066d82286c9a3f7882be42f5f53f488a", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-14T12:56:11.619Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:45d144cfbb1cc3bdcc41534fe19aa99ea3aebd407a9036c25dae793918c050ed", "version": "legal-2026-10-14", "expires": "2026-10-15T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-14+legal-2026-10-14+2026-10-14T12:52:48", "content_hash": "sha256:45d144cfbb1cc3bdcc41534fe19aa99ea3aebd407a9036c25dae793918c050ed", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-14T13:56:11.792Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca11-24-11642-2025-10-29", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca11-24-11642-2025-10-29" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca11-24-11642-2025-10-29" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca11-24-11642-2025-10-29" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering", "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }