{"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","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ca11-24-11642-2025-10-29","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-b3a804792fe872e0cf2ad067afc7ce1e","response_hash":"sha256:45d144cfbb1cc3bdcc41534fe19aa99ea3aebd407a9036c25dae793918c050ed"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T09:33:54.800Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aca11-24-11642-2025-10-29&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":26490}}