Opinion
1:14-cr-20160-GAYLES/TORRES
01-24-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. STRAVOULA PHILIPPOU MENDEZ, Defendant, v. DIMOND KAPLAN & ROTHSTEIN, P.A., Third-Party Petitioner.
ORDER
DARRIN P. GAYLES J UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres's Report and Recommendation on the Government's Motion to Dismiss Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A.'s Petition to Adjudicate Its Interests in Preliminary Forfeited Property (the “Report”). [ECF No. 438]. On June 23, 2021, Third-Party Petitioner Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A. filed its Notice of Claim and Verified Petition to Adjudicate the Validity of Its Interest in Property (the “Verified Petition”). [ECF No. 411]. On July 29, 2021, the Government filed its Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 417]. On August 16, 2021, the Court referred the Verified Petition and the Motion to Judge Torres, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a report and recommendation. [ECF No. 419].
On October 6, 2021, Judge Torres issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Verified Petition and Motion be stayed pending a resolution of the related state court action. [ECF No. 433]. On November 19, 2021, the Court affirmed and adopted in part the Report and Recommendation, finding that the merits of the Verified Petition and Motion could be addressed because the state court had subsequently issued a final judgement. [ECF No. 437 at 2-3]. See also [ECF No. 436-1]. On December 3, 2021, Judge Torres issued his Report recommending that the Motion be granted. [ECF No. 438]. On December 28, 2021, Third-Party Petitioner timely filed its Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on the Government's Motion to Dismiss (the “Objections”). [ECF No. 442]. The Government did not file a response to the Objections.
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objections are made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objections are made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F.Supp.2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed.Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
Having conduct a de novo review of the Report, Objections, and record, the Court agrees with Judge Torres's well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that the Motion should be granted. The Third-Party Petitioner did not have an interest superior to the Defendant's when the Government initiated forfeiture proceedings; and the Third-Party Petitioner had reasonable notice that the property was subject to forfeiture. Further, the Court is not convinced that the Third-Party Petitioner's contingency fee arrangement vested an interest in the specific property at issue. At best, the Third-Party Petitioner may be entitled to recover from its client a percentage of the value of the recovered property. As the Third-Party Petitioner's actions appear to have assisted the Government, this result may not seem fair-but it is supported by the law for the reasons set forth in the Report.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres's Report and Recommendation on the Government's Motion to Dismiss Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A.'s Petition to Adjudicate Its Interests in Preliminary Forfeited Property, [ECF No. 438], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference.
2. The Government's Motion to Dismiss Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A.'s Petition to Adjudicate Its Interests in Preliminary Forfeited Property, [ECF No. 417], is GRANTED.
3. Third-Party Petitioner Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A.'s Notice of Claim and Verified Petition to Adjudicate the Validity of Its Interest in Property, [ECF No. 411], is DISMISSED.
DONE AND ORDERED.