Stansell et al v. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia

Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 19-20896-CV-WILLIAMS
KEITH STANSELL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
REVOLUTIONARY ARMED FORCES OF
COLOMBIA, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Edwin Torres’ Report and
Recommendation (DE 996) (“Report”) on Antonio Caballero’s (“Caballero”) Amended
Motion to Change Venue Related to Interpleader Proceedings (DE 753, 757, 759, and
768) (DE 975) (“Motion” or “Motion to Change Venue”). In the Motion, Caballero
requests that the Court transfer four interpleader actions (DE 753 (“First PDVSA
Interpleader”); 	DE 	757 	(“Banco 	Interpleader”); 	DE 	759 	(“Second 	PDVSA
Interpleader”); DE 984 (“Lopez Bello Interpleader”)1 filed by garnishee JPMorgan
Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMorgan”) to Caballero’s action in the Southern District of New
York (“SDNY”)—In re Claims Against the Valero-Petrocedeno Account, No. 20-mc-
00249 (S.D.N.Y). (DE 975 at 1). In its Response, Plaintiffs do not oppose transfer of the
1 Docket entry 768, referenced in Caballero’s Motion, is JPMorgan’s Amended Answer
and 	Third-Party 	Complaint 	for 	Relief 	in 	Interpleader 	related 	to 	Plaintiffs’ 	Writ 	of
Garnishment (DE 706) on the blocked assets of Samark Jose Lopez Bello (“Lopez Bello
Assets”). Subsequent to the filing of Caballero’s Motion, JPMorgan filed a Second
Amended Answer and Third Party Complaint (DE 984) related to the same writ of
garnishment. For ease, the Court will refer to docket entry 984 when discussing the Lopez
Bello Interpleader.
Case 1:19-cv-20896-KMW Document 1060 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2025 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
First PDVSA, Banco, and Second PDVSA Interpleaders and request dismissal from
those actions because they have withdrawn their related writs of garnishment. (DE 990
at 1 (citing DE 946)).2 Plaintiff did oppose transfer of the Lopez Bello Interpleader, though
made no argument for why transfer is unwarranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1404.3 Plaintiffs
filed a Reply (DE 994).
In the Report, Judge Torres recommends that the Motion be granted. (DE 996 at
1, 5). Specifically, Judge Torres finds transfer appropriate as to the three interpleader
proceedings for which Plaintiffs do not oppose transfer because “(1) all parties agree on
transfer, (2) Plaintiffs have withdrawn their writs, (3) Mr. Caballero’s writs [in SDNY] were
first in time, and (4) Mr. Caballero’s claims to the accounts (and other similar accounts)
are already being decided in the Southern District of New York[.]” (Id. at 3). Judge Torres
finds transfer of the Lopez Bello Interpleader warranted, despite Plaintiffs’ opposition,
because it also relates to claims being decided in SDNY, and “Plaintiffs provide no real
argument 	as 	to 	why 	transfer 	is 	improper[.]” 	(Id. 	at 	4–5). 	Further, 	Judge 	Torres
recommends dismissing Plaintiffs from the First PDVSA, Banco, and Second PDVSA
Interpleaders because Plaintiffs have since withdrawn the related writs of garnishment
2 On October 1, 2025, after all briefing had been filed and Judge Torres’ Report had
been entered, Plaintiffs also withdrew and dismissed their Writ of Garnishment (DE 706)
related to the Lopez Bello Assets. (DE 1010). As the Court is adopting Judge Torres’
recommendation to transfer the Lopez Bello Interpleader, this development does not
alter the Court’s conclusion as to transfer but makes Plaintiffs’ dismissal from the Lopez
Bello Interpleader now appropriate as well.
3 In their Response, Plaintiffs also request the Court enter a turnover order in favor of Mr.
Caballero as to the Lopez Bello Assets. (DE 990 at 5). As Caballero did not request this
relief in his Motion, and in fact vigorously opposes it, (DE 994), the Court will not take up
this issue. See “[A]ffirmative requests for relief must be made in independent motions, not
buried in a legal memorandum.” Basulto v. Netflix, Inc., No. 22-21796-CIV, 2022 WL
17532279, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 8, 2022).
Case 1:19-cv-20896-KMW Document 1060 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2025 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
(DE 753; DE 757; DE 759). See (DE 946 (withdrawing writs of garnishment under docket
entries 711, 712, 713, 718, and 798)). JPMorgan does not oppose the Motion. (DE 975
at 1). And Plaintiffs “have no objections to the” Report. (DE 1013). Upon a careful review
of the Report, the Motion, the record, and the applicable law, 	it is ORDERED AND
ADJUDGED that:
1. 	Judge Torres’ Report (DE 996) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
2. 	Caballero’s Motion to Change Venue (DE 975) is GRANTED.
3. 	Based on their withdrawal of their relevant writs of garnishment, Plaintiffs
are DISMISSED from the First PDVSA (DE 753), Banco (DE 757), Second
PDVSA (DE 759), and Lopez Bello (DE 984) Interpleaders.
4. 	The Clerk of Court is directed to TRANSFER the four interpleader actions
identified in the Motion, the First PDVSA Interpleader (DE 753); Banco
Interpleader (DE 757); Second PDVSA Interpleader (DE 759); and Lopez
Bello Interpleader (DE 984), to the action in the Southern District of New
York, titled In re Claims Against the Valero-Petrocedeno Account, No. 20-
mc-00249 (S.D.N.Y.).
DONE 	AND 	ORDERED 	in 	Chambers 	in 	Miami, 	Florida, 	this 	18th 	day
of November, 2025.
Case 1:19-cv-20896-KMW Document 1060 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2025 Page 3 of 3