Parker v. U.S. Attorney General

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 23-cv-21388-BLOOM/TORRES
EMILE PARKER,
a.k.a. Andein Jean-Pierre,
Petitioner,
v.
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
____________________________/
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
THIS CAUSE is before the Court following a bench trial held on February 18, 2026. ECF
No. [131]. Petitioner Emile Parker (“Petitioner”), represented by counsel, and Respondent, U.S.
Attorney General (“Government”), represented by counsel, appeared and presented their cases.
The Court has considered the testimony of the witnesses, the documents admitted into evidence,
argument of counsel, the record in the case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. The
Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner petitioned the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for review of a final
administrative order of removal issued by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). See
ECF No. [1] at 2. DHS determined Petitioner was deportable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)
as a noncitizen convicted of an aggravated felony. Id. Petitioner challenges DHS’s order of
removal and asserts he is a U.S. citizen. Id. He alleges that he was born out of wedlock to a
noncitizen mother and a U.S. citizen father and meets all requirements to be a citizen under 8
U.S.C. § 1409(a). Id. The Government disagrees. Id. at 3.
Case 1:23-cv-21388-BB Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2026 Page 1 of 13

Case No. 23-cv-21388-BLOOM/TORRES
2
Petitioner identifies U.S. citizen Nick James Parker, formerly Nick James Poppys, as his
father. Id. at 4. The Government disputes Nick James Poppys is Petitioner’s father and instead
alleges Canadian citizen Nick George Parker may be Petitioner’s father.1 The Eleventh Circuit
determined that the disagreement regarding Petitioner’s father creates a genuine dispute of material
fact as to Petitioner’s citizenship and transferred Petitioner’s case to this Court to conduct a de
novo hearing on Petitioner’s nationality claim. Id. See also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5)(B).2
II. 	FINDINGS OF FACT
The Court makes the following findings of fact based on the evidence presented.3
A. Biographical Facts
Petitioner was born on November 9, 1979, in Gressier, Haiti, to Sonia Antoine (“Ms.
Antoine”), an unmarried citizen of Haiti. ECF No [110]. Haitian birth records and Deeds of
Recognition indicate that a man named “Nick Parker,” “Nicolas Parker,” or “Nick James Parker,”
who resided in Gressier, Haiti, appeared before Haitian civil authorities on February 4, 1980, and
February 5, 1990, and declared Petitioner to be his “natural son.” Id. Petitioner has three Haitian
birth certificates: one issued in 1979, identifying “Nicolas Parker” as his father; one issued in 2013,
identifying “Nick James Parker” as his father; and a third, reissued in 2021, also identifying “Nick
James Parker” as his father. Id.
1 For clarity, the Court will refer to Nick James Poppys (n/k/a Nick James Parker) as “Nick Poppys” and
Nick George Parker as “Nick Parker.”
2 Section 1252(b)(5)(B) states: “If the petitioner claims to be a national of the United States and the court
of appeals finds that a genuine issue of material fact about the petitioner's nationality is presented, the court
shall transfer the proceeding to the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the
petitioner resides for a new hearing on the nationality claim and a decision on that claim as if an action had
been brought in the district court under section 2201 of Title 28.” 8 U.S.C. §1252(b)(5)(B).
3 The Court makes these factual findings based on the uncontested facts presented in the parties’ Joint
Pretrial Stipulation, ECF No. [110]; the testimony of witnesses Steven Parker, Fresia Duque, and Karl
Miyasako, ECF No. [131]; and the exhibits admitted at trial, ECF No. [132].
Case 1:23-cv-21388-BB Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2026 Page 2 of 13

Case No. 23-cv-21388-BLOOM/TORRES
3
Nick James Poppys (“Nick Poppys”) is a U.S. citizen and was born on April 17, 1920, in
Minnesota. ECF No. [132-25]. There is no evidence he was a citizen of any other country. Nick
Poppys and Dolores Lucille Conlin had a son, Steven Poppys, born on April 8, 1948, in Los
Angeles, California. ECF No. [132-12]. On March 16, 1951, Nick Poppys and Dolores Poppys
obtained a Decree from the State of Hawaii changing their surname, and that of their son, Steven,
from Poppys to Parker. ECF No. [132-13]. Nick Poppys and Marjory Joan Rouille had a son,
Ronald (“Ron”) Parker, born on June 3, 1957, in Orange, California. ECF No. [132-14]. Nick
Poppys lived in Minnesota and moved to Florida when he retired. He resided in Sumter County,
Florida, from at least 1998 until his death in 2007. See ECF Nos. [110], [132-27].
Nick George Parker (“Nick Parker”) was born on July 1, 1929, in Bulgaria and is a
Canadian citizen. See ECF Nos. [132-2], [132-5]. On May 23, 1990, Nick Parker applied for
Canadian citizenship for his “natural son,” Emile Parker. ECF No. [132-5]. Nick Parker executed
the application for Canadian citizenship in Haiti and included Petitioner’s Haitian birth certificate
and a “Deed of Recognition.” Id. Each document listed “Nick Parker” as Petitioner’s father. Id. In
the application for Canadian citizenship, Nick Parker claimed he has lived in Haiti since 1977. Id.
Canada granted Petitioner’s citizenship application in 1990. ECF No. [110]. Petitioner holds a
Canadian passport. ECF No. [132-1].
B. Petitioner’s Immigration History
Petitioner came to the United States with his mother prior to May 1995, when Petitioner
filed a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status with the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”).4 ECF No [110]. In February 2001, INS denied
Petitioner’s Form I-485 for failure to provide all necessary documentation, including information
4 INS existed prior to 2003 when the Department of Homeland Security and USCIS were established.
Case 1:23-cv-21388-BB Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2026 Page 3 of 13

Case No. 23-cv-21388-BLOOM/TORRES
4
about an arrest. Id. Petitioner remained in Florida after INS denied his Form I-485. ECF No. [132-
18]. In December 1996, INS issued a Notice of Action addressed to the Florida Department of
Corrections indicating that Petitioner, who was an inmate, “is a United States citizen, therefore is
not deportable.” See ECF No. [132-30]. The Notice of Action was signed by the Assistant District
Director for Investigations. Id.
On August 1, 2008, Petitioner arrived at Miami International Airport and presented his
Canadian passport. ECF No. [132-16]. In a sworn statement to a Customs and Border Protection
(“CBP”) officer, Petitioner claimed to be a U.S. citizen, a Canadian citizen, and a Haitian national.
Id. In this sworn statement, he claimed he derived U.S. citizenship from his U.S. citizen father,
Nick Parker, who was born in Bulgaria. Id. at 4. CBP notified Petitioner that he was inadmissible
based on his criminal history and would be returned to his country of citizenship, Canada, on the
first available flight. Id. at 5-6. CBP also informed Petitioner he was barred from entering the
United States for at least five years. ECF No. [132-20].
C. USCIS Determination of Citizenship
On January 25, 2011, Petitioner filed a Form N-600 Application for Certificate Citizenship
(“N-600 Application”) with USCIS, claiming U.S. citizenship through his purported father, Nick
James Poppys (a/k/a Nick James Parker). ECF No. [132-19]. Appended to the Form N-600 were
birth and death certificates for Nick Poppys. ECF No. [110]. Petitioner provided two Haitian birth
certificates issued in 2010 and a paternity legitimation certificate allegedly claiming that Nick
James Parker legitimated Petitioner in Haiti in 1990. Id. USCIS denied Petitioner’s N-600
Application because it determined that both birth certificates and the legitimation certificate
submitted with Petitioner’s application were fraudulent. ECF No. [132-3].
Case 1:23-cv-21388-BB Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2026 Page 4 of 13

Case No. 23-cv-21388-BLOOM/TORRES
5
In November 2012, Petitioner was arrested and convicted of an aggravated felony in
Florida. ECF No. [110]. In June 2021, Petitioner was released to DHS custody upon early
completion of his Florida criminal sentence. Id. On June 22, 2021, DHS issued a Final
Administrative 	Removal 	Order 	(“FARO”) 	finding 	Petitioner 	removable 	under 	8 	U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), as a noncitizen convicted of an aggravated felony defined under 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1101(a)(43)(B) and (G), based on his Florida convictions. ECF No. [132-28]. Petitioner
submitted to DHS a request to reconsider and rescind the issuance of the FARO because, he
contended, he acquired citizenship as a child born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1409(a). ECF No. [132-29]. In support of his request, Petitioner attached an excerpt of his Haitian
birth certificate, issued in 2013, but not previously presented to DHS. ECF No. [110]. DHS did
not rescind the June 2021 FARO. Id. In January 2022, after consultation with the U.S. Department
of State, the Government acknowledged that extracts of Petitioner’s birth certificates from 2013
and 2021, submitted to DHS, were authentic. Id. DHS then released Petitioner from DHS custody
on January 13, 2022, and USCIS reopened Petitioner’s previously denied N-600 Application to
further evaluate his citizenship claim. Id.
In April 2022, Petitioner applied for and received a renewed Canadian passport. ECF No.
[110]. The application listed Petitioner’s father as Nick Parker with a date of birth of July 1, 1929,
in Bulgaria. ECF Nos. [110], [132-5]. When the Government asked Petitioner how he obtained
Canadian citizenship, Petitioner failed to provide any explanation. ECF No. [110].
The Government’s witness, Fresia Duque (“Ms. Duque”), a USCIS immigration officer
who has worked with INS and then USCIS since 1998 and has adjudicated more than two thousand
N-600 applications, testified that she was assigned to review Petitioner’s N-600 Application. Upon
review of Petitioner’s Application, file, and available records, USCIS denied his N-600
Case 1:23-cv-21388-BB Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2026 Page 5 of 13

Case No. 23-cv-21388-BLOOM/TORRES
6
Application on May 18, 2022, determining that Petitioner had not met his burden to establish he
was born to a U.S. citizen father. ECF No. [132-4]. USCIS determined Petitioner “did not acquire
citizenship at birth and [is] not eligible for a Certificate of Citizenship.” Id. Ms. Duque’s testimony
also established that the 1996 INS Notice of Action indicating Petitioner was a U.S. citizen is not
a determination of citizenship and that investigators with what was then INS do not adjudicate
immigration benefits or determine citizenship applications.
Ms. Duque testified to inconsistencies in the record, which weighed heavily on her decision
to deny Petitioner’s N-600 Application. She pointed to inconsistent sworn statements Petitioner
made about who his father is — at times claiming Nick Poppys, born in Minnesota, is his father
and at other times claiming his father was born in Bulgaria and that he was a Canadian citizen.
Petitioner’s N-600 Application identified Nick Poppys as his father. See ECF No. [132-19].
However, his Alien file, records with DHS and INS, and records obtained from Immigration,
Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC”) indicate that his father is Nick Parker, born in 1929
in Bulgaria, who is a Canadian citizen. USCIS’s denial also cited an entry record pertaining to a
Canadian man named Nick Parker, “rais[ing] doubt about which Nick Parker is [Petitioner’s]
father.” ECF No. [132-4]. The entry record documented a November 2, 2006, CBP encounter at
Miami International Airport with an individual named Nick Parker, born on July 1, 1929, who
entered the United States on a Canadian passport. ECF Nos. [132-2], [132-4]. CBP questioned
Nick Parker, and he indicated he was traveling to visit his son, Emile Parker. Id. Nick Parker
identified an address USCIS knew to belong to Petitioner. ECF No. [132-4].
D. Petitioner’s Relationship with Nick Poppys
The testimony of Nick Poppys’ son Steven Parker and the deposition of his son Ronald
Parker establish that between 1975 and 1982, Nick Poppys lived in Minnetonka, Minnesota.
Case 1:23-cv-21388-BB Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2026 Page 6 of 13

Case No. 23-cv-21388-BLOOM/TORRES
7
Ronald Parker lived in Minnesota at that time and either saw or spoke with his parents every
weekend. See ECF No. [132-17] at 44:11-48:16. During that time, Nick Poppys did not travel
internationally and did not travel to Haiti.
Neither Nick Poppys nor any other family member ever mentioned to Steven Parker that
Emile Parker was Nick Poppys’ son. Steven Parker first learned who Emile Parker was in
association with this case. Nick Poppys did not hold himself out as Petitioner’s father. Nor did he
make arrangements for any portion of his estate to devise to Petitioner upon his death. See ECF
No. [132-15].
To Steven Parker’s knowledge, Nick Poppys never travelled to Haiti nor did Nick Poppys
travel from Canada to Florida in 2006 to visit Petitioner. Prior to Nick Poppys’ death, from 2004-
2006, he had severe health issues including diabetes and congestive heart failure. He was
hospitalized regularly in 2006 and was not physically able to travel far distances, often traveling
only to the hospital the next town over.
E. DNA Testing
On October 25, 2023, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion and ordered Petitioner to
provide a DNA sample for testing. ECF No. [32]. At the time Petitioner provided his sample, he
was in state custody and under the supervision of Jackson Correctional Institute. Id. The
Government’s expert witness, Karl Miyasako (“Mr. Miyasako”), testified that he analyzed saliva
samples received from Petitioner, Steven Parker, and Ronald Parker. DNA samples were not
obtained from Nick Poppys, who is deceased, or Nick Parker. Mr. Miyasako analyzed the samples
by a process called Y-STR analysis, which does “DNA typing by analysis of Short Tandem Repeat
(STR) loci specific to the Y chromosome (also called Y-STRs)” to identify common paternal
relatives. See ECF No. [132-6]. Y-STR analysis is a validated procedure for determining paternal
Case 1:23-cv-21388-BB Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2026 Page 7 of 13

Case No. 23-cv-21388-BLOOM/TORRES
8
lineage and complies with the FBI’s Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing
Laboratories. Id. There is no indication that the DNA samples or testing were contaminated or
compromised. Mr. Miyasako’s report concludes that “Ron Parker cannot be excluded as a paternal
relative of Steven Parker. In addition, all patrilineal related male relatives cannot be excluded.” Id.
The report further concludes that “Emile Parker is excluded as being from a paternal relative of
Steven Parker and Ron Parker.” Id.
III. 	CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
As relevant to this case, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1401(g) and 1409(a) govern the transmission of
citizenship at birth to children born outside the United States. Section 1401(g) establishes that a
person born abroad to a noncitizen parent and a citizen parent is a U.S. citizen at birth, provided
that the citizen parent meets certain requirements of physical presence in the United States.
8 U.S.C. § 1401(g). Section 1409(a) establishes the requirements for applying § 1401(g) to
children born out of wedlock. 8 U.S.C. § 1409(a). The Eleventh Circuit summarized the applicable
statutory provisions:
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1409(a), a person born outside the United States and out of
wedlock to a United States citizen father and a noncitizen mother is a United States
citizen and national from birth if the father 	met certain physical-presence
requirements and: (1) a blood relationship to the father is established by clear and
convincing evidence; (2) the father had the nationality of the United States at the
time of the person’s birth; (3) the father (if living) has agreed in writing to provide
financial support for the person until he reaches the age of 18; and (4) while the
person is under the age of 18, the person is legitimated under the law of his
residence or domicile, the father acknowledges paternity in writing under oath, or
paternity is established by adjudication of a competent court.
ECF No. [1] at 3-4 (summarizing 8 U.S.C. §1409(a)).
Case 1:23-cv-21388-BB Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2026 Page 8 of 13

Case No. 23-cv-21388-BLOOM/TORRES
9
Petitioner bears the burden of proving citizenship by a preponderance of the evidence,5
except that he must show a blood relationship under § 1409(a)(1) by clear and convincing
evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1409(a)(1). Any doubts about citizenship are resolved in favor of the
Government. See Berenyi v. Dist. Dir., INS, 385 U.S. 630, 637 (1967). DNA evidence is admissible
and relevant to the factual question of paternity. However, in Nguyen v. I.N.S., 533 U.S. 53, 54
(2001), the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that DNA is not the exclusive or necessary means of
proving paternity. The Court explained that “the Constitution does not require that Congress elect
one particular mechanism from among many possible methods of establishing paternity,” and 8
U.S.C. § 1409 “does not mandate DNA testing.” Id. Instead, the statute allows paternity to be
established by any one of several alternatives — including acknowledgment under oath and
documentary evidence. See id.
Under § 1409(a), the threshold question is whether Petitioner has established by clear and
convincing evidence that he has a blood relationship with a U.S. citizen father. It is only after that
relationship is established that the father’s nationality at the time of birth, acknowledgement of
paternity, and financial support become relevant. Here, the parties dispute the identity of
Petitioner’s father. Thus, the threshold question is whether Petitioner has established that U.S.
citizen Nick Poppys is his biological father. After evaluating the evidence, including the testimony
and credibility of the witnesses, the Court concludes that Petitioner has not met his burden to
5 In declaratory judgment actions under other sections of the Immigration Nationality Act, the Eleventh
Circuit has held that the petitioner has the burden of proving U.S. citizenship by a preponderance of the
evidence. See Martinez v. Secretary of State, 652 F. App’x 758, 761 (11th Cir. 2016) (“In a § 1503(a)
declaratory judgment action, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that he is a U.S. citizen by a
preponderance of the evidence.”). Although the Eleventh Circuit has not expressly determined the burden
of proof for declaratory actions under 8 U.S.C. § 1409, the parties agree Petitioner’s burden is by a
preponderance of the evidence. See ECF No. [110].
Case 1:23-cv-21388-BB Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2026 Page 9 of 13

Case No. 23-cv-21388-BLOOM/TORRES
10
establish a blood relationship between Petitioner and Nick Poppys by clear and convincing
evidence.
Petitioner contends that Nick Poppys travelled to Haiti, had a child with Ms. Antoine in
November 1979, and returned to Haiti in 1980 and/or 1990 to declare Petitioner as his son. To
support his contention, Petitioner identifies his birth records and Deeds of Recognition listing Nick
James Parker as his father. See ECF Nos. [132-21]-[132-24]. Petitioner did not present any other
evidence to establish his relationship with Nick Poppys.6 Considering only the evidence presented
by Petitioner, the Court concludes that inconsistencies in Petitioner’s evidence — namely the
multiple, inconsistent birth records7 and Petitioner’s contradicting sworn statements as to the
nationality of his father — preclude such evidence from being sufficiently clear or convincing for
Petitioner to meet his burden.
Not only did Petitioner fail to meet his burden to establish Nick Poppys is his father, there
is overwhelming evidence that Nick Poppys is not Petitioner’s father. Although DNA evidence is
not required to prove paternity, the Court finds the DNA testing performed in this case to be highly
probative. The Government did not present direct DNA evidence of the relationship between
6 Several pre-trial orders impacted the presentation of Petitioner’s case. See ECF Nos. [58], [80], and [97].
As a result of Petitioner’s failure to comply with discovery and the Court’s orders, the Court issued Rule
37 sanctions, precluding Petitioner “from offering (1) any witness testimony, including testimony from
Petitioner; (2) any witness declarations, signed affidavits, or other writings made by any person; and (3)
any documentary, real, or demonstrative evidence.” ECF No. [58] at 7. Petitioner was restricted to
presenting only those documents submitted with his Petition for Review filed in the Eleventh Circuit. Id.
The Court also ordered that the Government is entitled to adverse inferences against Petitioner. Id. The
adverse inferences are listed in the Court’s May 6, 2026, Order on Motion in Limine for Adverse Inferences.
ECF No. [97]. The Court granted the Government’s Motion in Limine to exclude the Declaration of Sonia
Federic Antoine. See ECF No. [80]. In making its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Court did not
rely on those adverse inferences and instead made its determinations after careful consideration of the
evidence presented at trial.
7 Because it is Petitioner’s burden to establish clear and convincing evidence of a blood relationship with a
U.S. citizen father, the Court need not determine which, if any, birth certificate or Deed of Recognition is
authentic. The fact that there are inconsistent records, even if some are deemed authentic by the U.S.
Department of State, is a factor for the Court to consider in determining whether Petitioner has met his
burden.
Case 1:23-cv-21388-BB Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2026 Page 10 of 13

Case No. 23-cv-21388-BLOOM/TORRES
11
Petitioner and Nick Poppys. However, Y-STR analysis is a reliable and credible testing process to
determine patrilineal relationships. The uncontested evidence presented at trial establishes that
Steven Parker and Ronald Parker are likely Nick Poppys’ biological children. Therefore, the Y-
STR analysis’s conclusion that Petitioner is “excluded as being from a paternal relative of Steven
Parker and Ron Parker” is highly probative evidence that Petitioner does not have a blood
relationship with Nick Poppys.
In addition to the DNA evidence, the testimony and documents presented weigh against
Petitioner’s claim that he has a blood relationship with Nick Poppys. The Court also credits the
testimony of the Government’s witnesses, which establishes that Nick Poppys resided in
Minnesota with limited travel during the period Nick Poppys would have been traveling or living
in Haiti to father a child, and Nick Poppys never acknowledged Petitioner to his family nor held
himself out as Petitioner’s father.
Although the Court need not definitively determine who is Petitioner’s father, the
Government has presented persuasive evidence that Nick Parker is Petitioner’s father. The
evidence is consistent that Petitioner has Canadian citizenship via his status as the son of Canadian
citizen, Nick Parker, which was established with Nick Parker’s first application in 1990 and
reaffirmed as recently as 2022 when Petitioner renewed his Canadian passport. Petitioner could
not obtain this citizenship if Nick Poppys were his father because Nick Poppys was not a Canadian
citizen. Moreover, Nick Parker presented a Canadian passport and stated to CBP officials in 2006
that he was traveling to Florida to visit his son, Emile Parker, at an address known to be
Petitioner’s. Nick Poppys’ health, his lack of Canadian citizenship, and Steven Parker’s personal
knowledge that Nick Poppys was not traveling far distances at that time make it highly implausible
that he was the Nick Parker attempting to visit his son, Petitioner.
Case 1:23-cv-21388-BB Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2026 Page 11 of 13

Case No. 23-cv-21388-BLOOM/TORRES
12
Where it is Petitioner’s burden to show a blood relationship by clear and convincing
evidence, the Court concludes Petitioner has not met his burden. Because Petitioner failed to
establish a blood relationship with a U.S. citizen father, Petitioner cannot meet the requirements
to prove citizenship under § 1409(a), and the Court need not address the remaining requirements
of the statute. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Petitioner is not a U.S. citizen under
§ 1409(a).
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. 	Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 2201, the Court DECLARES as
follows:
a. 	Petitioner does not meet the requirements for citizenship under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1409(a) because Petitioner did not meet his burden to establish, by clear and
convincing evidence, a blood relationship between him and a U.S. citizen
father. Therefore, Petitioner is not a U.S. citizen.
2. 	Judgment shall be entered in favor of the Government.8
3. 	The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.
4. 	To the extent not otherwise disposed of, any scheduled hearings are CANCELED, all
pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT, and all deadlines are TERMINATED.
8 The Eleventh Circuit advised that the parties should file a timely notice of appeal if they wish to seek
review of this Court’s determination of Petitioner’s nationality. See ECF No. [1] at 5 n.3.
Case 1:23-cv-21388-BB Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2026 Page 12 of 13

Case No. 23-cv-21388-BLOOM/TORRES
13
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on April 15, 2026.
_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Case 1:23-cv-21388-BB Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2026 Page 13 of 13