| In FARC Case in SDNY Before
Judge Carter Plaintiffs Zero In On Citibank As
Garnishee
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- The
Source
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
July 9 – In one of the FARC
cases pending in the U.S.
District Court for the
Southern District of New York,
in which Samark Jose Lopez
Bello is seeking to intervene,
back on June 22 Judge J. Paul
Oetken held a proceeding.
Inner City Press covered it,
see below.
On July 9
in a parallel case before
Judge Andrew L. Carter, the
plaintiffs reported on cash
turnovers by UBS, BB&T
(now Truist), Raymond James
and others to the tune of $51
million. But Citibank has not
turned over the funds, and
that is the rub. The case is
Stansell et al v.
Revolutionary Armed forces of
Colombia (FARC).
On
June 22 before Judge Oetken,
surprisingly, Citibank which
appeared in a parallel case
before SDNY Judge Andrew L.
Carter, was not present.
These despite a
June 5 filing that the case
would be addressing issues
"regarding whether the
Citibank assets are 'subject
to TRIA attachment and
execution.'"
Judge
Oetken called this a
"metaphysical" issue, a word
then repeatedly used by
counsel.
On June 26,
after 5 pm, this was filed to
Judge Oetken: " Re: Pescatore,
et al. v. Palmera Pineda, et
al., No. 1:18-mc-00545-JPO
Dear Judge Oetken: On June 22,
2020, this Court held a
telephonic conference with the
Pescatore Plaintiffs and
Intervenors Samark Jose Lopez
Bello and Yakima Trading
Corporation (“Intervenors”).
During the call, the
Plaintiffs notified the Court
that they wished to seek an
extension of time to complete
the execution and turnover
proceedings related to their
judgment against the FARC
terrorist organization and its
agents and instrumentalities.
See 18 U.S.C. § 2333(e).
Accordingly, Plaintiffs hereby
move for this time extension
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
69(a) and N.Y. C.P.L.R. §
5234(c), which is detailed
below, and respectfully
request that this extension be
ordered on or before July 3rd
to preserve Plaintiffs’
priority under New York law.
Plaintiffs seek an extension
under N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5234(c),
which states: (c) Priority of
other judgment creditors.
Where personal property or
debt has been ordered
delivered, transferred or
paid, or a receiver thereof
has been appointed by order,
or a receivership has been
extended thereto by order, and
the order is filed before the
property or debt is levied
upon, the rights of the
judgment creditor who secured
the order are superior to
those of the judgment creditor
entitled to the proceeds of
the levy. Where two or more
such orders affecting the same
interest in personal property
or debt are filed, the
proceeds of the property or
debt shall be applied in the
order of filing. Where
delivery, transfer, or payment
to the judgment creditor, a
receiver, or a sheriff or
other officer is not completed
within sixty days after an
order is filed, the judgment
creditor who secured the order
is divested of priority,
unless otherwise specified in
the order or in an extension
order filed within the sixty
days. (emphasis added).
This extension is
necessary because Plaintiffs
will be unable to complete
their execution within the 60
day time period. The
Intervenors seek to raise
several legal issues that are
likely to delay the resolution
of any execution and turnover
proceedings. In addition,
Plaintiffs recently obtained
discovery concerning the
nature of the Intervenors’
assets, and Plaintiffs have
agreed to share this
information with the
Intervenors. Therefore, to
ensure the Plaintiffs maintain
their priority and rights, if
any, to the assets of the
Intervenors in relation to any
other judgment creditors,
Plaintiffs believe it is vital
to obtain a time extension
pursuant to § 5234(c) so that
this Court can fully resolve
the legal rights of the
Plaintiffs and Intervenors. As
such, Plaintiffs respectfully
request that the time
requirement in § 5234(c) to
complete execution be tolled
until this Court rules
otherwise. Plaintiffs have not
previously requested any
extensions of time, and the
Intervenors do not oppose this
motion and reserve their
rights to assert all available
defenses."
The Judge Carter
case has a conference in July.
This case is
PESCATORE et al, 18-mc-545
(Oetken).
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2019 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com for
|
,
