In 2018, Casa Express Corp. obtained a $40 million judgment against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in the Southern District of New York for unpaid global bonds and notes. When Venezuela failed to pay, Casa sought to execute the judgment in Florida against eight real properties owned by third-party defendants, including Raul Gorrin Belisario and six corporate entities. Casa alleged that Gorrin bribed Venezuelan officials to secure foreign currency contracts, misappropriated the profits, and used those funds to purchase the Florida properties. Casa asked the district court to impose a constructive trust on the properties under Florida law and enforce the New York judgment against them. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings for the defendants, ruling it lacked ancillary jurisdiction because the Florida claims involved different parties, facts, and legal theories than the New York bond dispute. Casa appealed, arguing the court had jurisdiction to enforce the judgment against the third parties.
Writing for the court, Circuit Judge Hull analyzed the scope of ancillary jurisdiction under the Supreme Court's decision in Peacock v. Thomas. The court explained that while federal courts may exercise ancillary jurisdiction to enforce their own judgments or manage proceedings, they cannot use it to impose an obligation to pay an existing judgment on a person not already liable for that judgment. The Eleventh Circuit found that Casa was attempting to shift liability for Venezuela's bond debt to Gorrin and his corporations, who were never parties to the New York suit and never held liable for the bonds. Furthermore, the court noted that the Florida proceedings were founded on entirely new theories of liability—specifically a constructive trust based on a bribery scheme—rather than the breach of contract claims that produced the New York judgment. The court distinguished this case from National Maritime Services, Inc. v. Straub, where ancillary jurisdiction was proper because the plaintiff sought to recover assets that the judgment debtor had fraudulently transferred to avoid payment. In contrast, the properties here were never owned by Venezuela; Casa was trying to prove Gorrin's liability for a separate scheme to attach the assets. Because the relief sought was of a different kind and principle than the prior decree, ancillary jurisdiction did not apply.
The decision clarifies that creditors cannot use ancillary jurisdiction to expand a judgment to new defendants based on separate misconduct or theories of liability. Casa must now pursue its claims against Gorrin and the corporate entities through a new, independent lawsuit with its own basis for subject matter jurisdiction, such as diversity of citizenship, rather than relying on the New York judgment. The case is remanded to the district court to dismiss the action without prejudice.