No. 19A1058 In the Supreme Court of the United States KEITH STANSELL, ET AL. v. SAMARK JOSE LOPEZ BELLO, ET AL., Applicants On Application for a Stay RENEWED EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF THE JUDGMENT OF EXECUTION PENDING THE FILING AND DISPOSITION OF A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ________________________ To the Honorable Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States JOHN C. CONNELL Counsel of Record JEFFREY M. SCOTT KERRI E. CHEWNING Archer & Greiner, P.C. One Centennial Square Haddonfield, NJ 08033 (856) 795-2121 [email protected] Counsel for Applicants i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS The parties to the proceeding below are as follows: 1. Applicants Samark Jose López Bello, Yakima Trading Corporation, EPBC Holdings, Ltd., 1425 Brickell Ave 63-F LLC, 1425 Brickell Ave Unit 46B LLC, 1425 Brickell Ave 64E LLC, and 200G PSA Holdings LLC, Profit Corp. CA, SMT Technologia CA, and PYP International LLC 2. Keith Stansell, Marc Gonsalves, Thomas Howes, Judith Janis—as personal representative of Thomas Janis’s estate—and Thomas Janis’s surviving children (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). 3. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (“FARC”), a terrorist organization. Related proceedings: 1. Stansell v. Samark Jose López Bello et al., No. 20-11736-GG (11th Cir.) 2. Stansell v. Samark Jose López Bello et al., No. 19-11415 (11th Cir.) 3. Stansell v. Samark Jose López Bello et al., No. 19-13957 (11th Cir.) 4. Stansell v. Samark Jose López Bello et al., Civil Action No. 19-20896 (S.D. Fla.) ii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Per Supreme Court Rule 29, Applicants Samark Jose López Bello, Yakima Trading Corporation, EPBC Holdings, Ltd., 1425 Brickell Ave 63-F LLC, 1425 Brickell Ave Unit 46B LLC, 1425 Brickell Ave 64E LLC, and 200G PSA Holdings LLC, Profit Corp. CA, SMT Technologia CA, and PYP International LLC (“Applicants”) state that neither he nor the listed companies, have a parent company or is associated with a publicly-held company that has a 10% or greater ownership interest in the identified parties. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS ....................... I OPINIONS BELOW ...................................................................................................... 2 CONSTITUTIONAL/STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ................................. 3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................................................................... 4 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................ 15 I. There Is More Than A Reasonable Probability That Four Justices Will Consider The Issue Sufficiently Meritorious To Grant Certiorari Or To Note Probable Jurisdiction And There Will Be A Fair Prospect That A Majority Of The Court Will Conclude That The Decision Below Was Erroneous. ................................................. 15 A. The District Court Procedures In Administering the TRIA Case Consistently Violated Applicants’ Due Process Rights Under the Fifth Amendment. ...................................................................................................... 15 B. District Court Erroneously Found That An Indirect Connection Is Sufficient to Create Agency And Instrumentality and Render a Non-Party Liable to Satisfy a Default Judgment. ............................................................. 20 C. There Is A Split In The Circuit Courts As To Whether There Is A “Temporal Limitation” On TRIA’s Agent or Instrumentality Requirement. 24 II. Applicants Will Suffer Irreparable Harm and the Balance of the Equities Favor a Stay. ........................................................................................................................... 26 III. Because The Judgment Is Secured, This Stay Need Not Be Conditioned Upon Security. ....................................................................................................................... 28 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 31 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Federal Cases Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Assocs., Inc., 483 U.S. 143 (1987) ...................................................................................................... 26 In re Air Crash Disaster Near Roselawn, Ind., 96 F.3d 932 (7th Cir. 1996) .................................................................................... 21, 22 Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) ...................................................................................................... 15 Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971) ...................................................................................................... 17 Center for Individual Rights v. Chevaldina, 2019 WL 7370412 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2019) ................................................................ 30 Connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1 (1991) .................................................................................................... 16, 19 Dixon v. United States, 900 F.3d 1257 (2018) ................................................................................................... 28 Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) ...................................................................................................... 19 Graves v. Barnes, 405 U.S. 1201 (1972) (Powell, J., in chambers) .......................................................... 14 Kirschenbaum v. 650 Fifth Ave. & Related Properties, 830 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2016) ................................................................................... 23, 24 Kirschenbaum v. 650 Fifth Ave., 257 F. Supp. 3d 463 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) ..................................................................... 24, 25 v Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982) ...................................................................................................... 17 Mahan v. Howell, 404 U.S. 1201 (1971) (Black, J., in chambers) ............................................................ 14 In re Masvidal, 10 F.3d 761 (11th Cir. 1993) ........................................................................................ 29 Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................ 27 Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 479 U.S. 1312 (1986) .................................................................................................... 13 Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc., 485 U.S. 80 (1988) ........................................................................................................ 16 Poplar Grove Planting & Ref. Co. v. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc., 600 F.2d 1189 (5th Cir. 1979) ...................................................................................... 28 Rostker v. Goldberg, 448 U.S. 1306 (1980) .................................................................................................... 14 Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 138 S. Ct. 816 (2018) .................................................................................................... 25 Stansell v. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), 771 F.3d 713 (11th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................... passim Suntrust Bank v. Ruiz, 2015 WL 1126713 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 6, 2015) ................................................................. 30 Turnbow v. Comm’r, 368 U.S. 337 (1961) ...................................................................................................... 26 United States v. Alabama, 691 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................... 27 vi United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43 (1993) ............................................................................................ 16, 17, 19 Venus Lines Agency v. CVG Industria Venezolana De Alumino, C.A., 210 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2000) .................................................................................... 28 Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441 (1973) ...................................................................................................... 23 State Cases Daniels v. Sorriso Dental Studio, LLC, 164 So. 3d 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) ............................................................................. 29 Federal Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 1441(d) ...................................................................................................... 22 28 U.S.C. § 2101(f) ................................................................................................... 3, 13 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) ....................................................................................................... 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 ......................................................................................................... 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b) ................................................................................................. 1, 28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d) ..................................................................................................... 28 S. Ct. R. 22.3 .................................................................................................................. 3 S. Ct. R. 22.4 ...............................................................................................................