Osio v. Maduro - Court Denies Anschütz Motion to Dissolve Garnishment

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 7, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Meudy Albán Osio in her personal capacity and in her capacity as the personal representative of the Estate of Fernando Alberto Albán, et al. v. Nicolas Maduro Moros, et al.

District Court, S.D. Florida

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1:21-cv-20706

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:21-cv-20706-GAYLES/TORRES

MEUDY ALBÁN OSIO in her personal capacity
and in her capacity as the personal representative
of the Estate of FERNANDO ALBERTO ALBÁN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,
v.

NICOLAS MADURO MOROS, et al.,

Defendants.
____________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Anschütz GmbH’s (Anschütz) Motion to
Dissolve Writ of Garnishment (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 324]. On November 8, 2024, the Court
referred all post-judgment matters to Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres. [ECF No. 233]. On May
13, 2025, Judge Torres issued his Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) recommending that
the Motion be denied. [ECF No. 466]. On May 27, 2025, Anschütz filed objections to the Report,
[ECF No. 483]; and on June 10, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a response to the objections, [ECF No. 522].
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 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
In his Report, Judge Torres finds that because Plaintiffs began their garnishment
proceedings and obtained the writ of garnishment before OFAC unblocked the Escrow Account,
Anschiitz’s Motion should be denied. [ECF No. 466]. The Court has conducted a de novo review
of the Motion and the record and agrees with Judge Torres’s well-reasoned analysis and findings.!
Notably, a finding that the writ of garnishment was proper is not a finding that Anschiitz must turn
over the Escrow Account to Plaintiffs. The ownership of the funds in the Escrow Account is an
issue for the Court to determine when ruling on Plaintiffs’ pending Motion for Final Turnover
Judgment as to Blocked Funds Belonging to DIANCA. [ECF No. 409].
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 466],
is ADOPTED in FULL.
2. Anschiitz GmbH’s Motion to Dissolve Writ of Garnishment, [ECF No. 324], is
DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 7th day of April, 2026.

UNITED STATES DIST JUDGE

'Tn the Report, Judge Torres cites to 31 C.F.R. § 536.402 which addresses amendments to OFAC orders in the context
of Narcotics Trafficking Sanctions Regulations. Anschiitz correctly point out that the regulation at issue here is
Venezuela Sanction Regulation, 31 C.F.R. § 591.042. However, Anschiitz agrees that, for purposes of this Order, the
two provisions are substantively identical.