UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-23278-GAYLES/GOODMAN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPROXIMATELY $9,105,221.62 IN FUNDS (PLUS INTEREST) CURRENTLY HELD BY THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE REPRESENTING 95% OF THE NET PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF THE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 500 WEST JEFFERSON STREET, LOUISVILLE, KY 40202 KNOWN AS PNC PLAZA,

Defendants. ________________________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman’s Report and Recommendations (the “Report”), [ECF No. 241], regarding Claimants’ Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint with Prejudice (the “Motion”), [ECF No. 221]. On December 14, 2023, the Court referred the Motion to Judge Goodman for a ruling, pursuant to

(b)(1)(B). [ECF No. 219]. Following a hearing [ECF No. 232], Judge Goodman issued his Report on July 26, 2024, recommending that the Court deny the Motion [ECF No. 241]. Objections and responses were timely filed. [ECF Nos. 245, 250]. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

(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,

(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.,

(M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2006). Having conducted a de novo review of the record, the Court agrees with Judge Goodman’s well-reasoned analysis and conclusions that (1) this action is not time-barred; (2) the Court has Jurisdiction over this case; and (3) the PNC Plaza constitutes property involved in a money laundering offense with a substantial connection to the funds at issue in this case. The Court will therefore deny the Claimants’ Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Magistrate Judge Goodman’s Report and Recommendations, [ECF No. 241], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference. 2. Claimants’ Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint with Prejudice, [ECF No. 221], is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 18th day of December, 2024.

Df Bld UNITED STATES DISTRICV JUDGE