United States District Court, D. Minnesota
ALFREDO VILLOLDO, individually, and GUSTAVO E. VILLOLDO, individually, and as Administrator, Executor, and Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF GUSTAVO VILLOLDO ARGILAGOS, Plaintiffs,
FIDEL CASTRO RUZ, as an individual, and as an official, employee, or agent of the Republic of Cuba, RAUL CASTRO RUZ, as an individual, and as an official, employee, or agent of 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, Defendants
For Alfredo Villoldo, individually, Gustavo E. Villoldo, individually, and as Administrator, Executor, and Personal Representative of the Estate of Gustavo Villoldo Argilagos, Plaintiffs: Cameron A Lallier, Stephen J Foley, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Mpls, MN.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JANIE S. MAYERON, United States Magistrate Judge.
The above matter came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge to determine whether this case should be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The matter has been referred to this Court for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1(c).
On August 19, 2011, plaintiffs obtained a judgment against defendants in Miami-Dade County, Florida, in the amount of $2, 790, 000, 000 (" Judgment"). See Docket No. 1, Ex. A. In a related action, this Court issued an order authorizing attachment of defendants' assets within this jurisdiction and authorized plaintiffs to enforce the judgment against defendants using post-judgment enforcement procedures. See Villoldo v. Castro Ruz, Misc. No. 13-20 (JNE/JSM), Order [Docket No. 17]. Plaintiffs then commenced this action on June 27, 2013, by filing a Notice of Pending Action -- 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(g) Lis Pendens in this Court. [Docket No. 1]. The purpose of this action was to provide notice of the Judgment, which affects all property located in this judicial district owned by the defendants and numerous entities, agencies or instrumentalities of defendants, so as to allow plaintiffs to proceed to take over any assets located in the District.
Nearly 18 months have passed since this action was filed, and no further pleadings or motions have been filed by any party. Accordingly, on November 14, 2014, this Court issued an Order directing plaintiffs by December 1, 2014, to file written report on the status of their efforts to locate assets in this District. [Docket No. 6].
On December 1, 2014, plaintiffs submitted a Response to the Court's Order of November 14, 2014. [Docket No. 7]. In their Response, plaintiffs admitted that contrary to the information they had received from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (" OFAC"), they had located no assets belonging to defendants in this District. Id. Plaintiffs did state that they were continuing their efforts to locate and execute upon assets belonging to defendants, and that they intended to re-subpoena the OFAC for any new assets that may have been blocked in this district over the past year. Id. Based on this record, it is apparent to the Court that the matter was filed here erroneously or prematurely. Therefore, the Court recommends that this matter be dismissed without prejudice. In the event that plaintiffs discover assets located in this District belonging to defendants, or any entities, agencies or instrumentalities of defendants, plaintiffs may commence a new proceeding at that time.
For the reasons stated above, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs' Complaint [Docket No. 1] be ...