# Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Safe Chain Solutions, LLC

> District Court, E.D. New York · August 29, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10766839

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. New York
- **Decided:** August 29, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10766839

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that the power of contempt is “governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases”
- noting that the power of contempt is “governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases”

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------- x
GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., GILEAD SCIENCES
IRELAND UC, and GILEAD SCIENCES LLC, SEALED
REPORT AND
Plaintiffs, RECOMMENDATION1

-against- 21-CV-4106
(Donnelly, J.)
SAFE CHAIN SOLUTIONS LLC, et al., (Marutollo, M.J.)

Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- x

JOSEPH A. MARUTOLLO, United States Magistrate Judge:
On March 19, 2024, Plaintiffs Gilead Sciences, Inc., Gilead Sciences Ireland UC, and
Gilead Sciences LLC (together, “Gilead”) filed a Contempt Motion, styled as a “Motion for Order
to Show Cause for Contempt” seeking an order from this Court finding Defendant Yisel Lopez
(“Ms. Lopez”) liable for violating the terms of an Asset Freeze Order entered on August 11, 2022.
Dkt. No. 1327.
In its memorandum of law in support of its contempt motion, Gilead asserts that it has
learned from third-party discovery that Ms. Lopez entered into a contract for the sale of a property
subject to the Asset Freeze Order. Dkt. No. 1328, at 4. Gilead seeks an order ensuring that Ms.

1 Certain exhibits filed with Gilead’s Contempt Motion are under seal. “That is at odds with the
principles of public access and transparency.” Lyons v. New York Life Ins. Co., No. 20-CV-3120 (PAE),
2022 WL 837202, at *27 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2022), appeal dismissed (Oct. 21, 2022) (“on its review of the
summary judgment record, the Court found documents that were improperly filed under seal or redacted.”);
see also AngioDynamics, Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., No. 17-CV-598 (BKS) (CFH), 2022 WL 2643583, at *26
(N.D.N.Y. July 8, 2022) (“Portions of a number of the exhibits refer portions of many of these documents
are quoted publicly elsewhere in the record, suggesting that maintaining these documents entirely under
seal is not justified.”).
Nonetheless, at this time and out of an abundance of caution, the Court is issuing this Report and
Recommendation under seal with copies provided to the parties. The parties may submit a copy of this
Report and Recommendation with proposed redactions by September 5, 2024. If the parties do not submit
any proposed redactions by September 5, 2024, the Court will docket this Report and Recommendation, in
its entirety, on the public docket.
Lopez is not able to dissipate the proceeds of this sale—along with additional relief “to address
her prior violations of the Asset Freeze Order.” Id. Specifically, Gilead alleges that three
violations of the Asset Freeze Order have already occurred: (i) the sale of a Miami property by
Ms. Lopez, (ii) the mortgaging of her primary residence in Broward County, Florida, and (iii)

contracting for the sale of her primary residence in Broward County, Florida. Id.
Following a referral2 from the Honorable Ann M. Donnelly, United States District Judge,
the undersigned respectfully recommends that (i) Gilead’s Contempt Motion be GRANTED; (ii)
Ms. Lopez be held in contempt and, as a remedy, and (iii) that Ms. Lopez be directed to comply
with the directives outlined in Section IV of this Report and Recommendation.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Relevant Facts
This action, which commenced on July 22, 2021, arises out of an alleged HIV drug
counterfeiting ring involving three groups of participants: suppliers, distributors, and pharmacies.
See Memorandum Decision and Order, Dkt. No. 781 at 2; see also Fourth Amended Complaint,

Dkt. No. 782 ¶¶ 1-11. Gilead alleges that distributor defendants sold “authentic-looking” Gilead-
branded bottles repurposed with non-Gilead drugs, such as anti-psychotic medication, that do not
treat HIV. Id at ¶¶ 1-2, 204-208. Gilead also alleges that defendants sold thousands of Gilead-
branded bottles with the correct Gilead medication but accompanied by fake government-required
forms called “pedigrees.” Id. at ¶¶ 216-219. Since Gilead is in the business of, inter alia,

2 The undersigned notes, in the interest of clarity, that Gilead’s Contempt Motion stems from an
alleged violation of a district judge’s order and does not implicate a magistrate judge’s contempt authority
as outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 636(e). See Aquavit Pharms., Inc. v. U-Bio Med, Inc., No. 19-CV-3351 (VEC),
2020 WL 1900502, at *4 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2020). Therefore, the undersigned’s opinion is issued as
a Report and Recommendation to the district judge and will be regarded as any other proposed findings of
fact and recommended dispositions issued under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b)(1). See id.;
Funnekotter v. Republic of Zimbabwe, No. 09-CV-8168, 2011 WL 5517860, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 10,
2011).
producing “life-saving treatments for patients living with HIV” and “pre-exposure prophylactic,
or PrEP, medication that protects against HIV-1 infection when taken as prescribed,” (id. at ¶¶ 1,
190), the consequences of Defendants’ alleged conduct can be—as Gilead posits—“dire.” Id. at ¶
3. Further, since the foreign drugs in the counterfeit bottles were not obtained via proper

prescriptions and since individuals who received and ingested these counterfeits “unwittingly
miss[ed] their HIV treatment or falsely believe[d] themselves to be protected against HIV
infection,” Gilead commenced this action with a heightened interest in putting “an immediately
stop to the sale of these dangerous counterfeit medications.” Id. at ¶ 12.
Gilead seeks, inter alia, injunctive and monetary relief against all Defendants for trademark
infringement in violation of Section 32 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114); false descriptions
and false designations of origin in commerce in violation of Section 43 of the Lanham Act (15
U.S.C. § 1125); trademark dilution in violation of Section 43 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §
1125) and New York General Business Law § 360-1; deceptive business practices in violation of
New York General Business Law § 349; common-law unjust enrichment and unfair competition;

engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); and
conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §
1962(d). Id. at ¶¶ 652-749.
B. The Asset Freeze Order
On July 30, 2022, Gilead moved to amend its Third Amended Complaint to “add new
Defendants and to add new allegations concerning existing Defendants, and the counterfeiting
conspiracy, based on new evidence.” Dkt. No. 606, at 1. In addition, Gilead also moved for (i) an
ex parte seizure order “permitting the seizure of dangerous counterfeit HIV medications and the
documentation concerning their purchase, sale, and distribution”; (ii) an temporary restraining
order, to be following a preliminary injunction, “enjoining certain newly added Defendants from
the manufacture, sale, distribution, and advertisement of Gilead drug”; and (iv) an asset freeze
order against certain newly added Defendants “to preserve Gilead’s right to an equitable
accounting.” Id. In support of its motion to amend, Gilead submitted a proposed Fourth Amended

Complaint naming, inter alia, Mr. Herrera and Ms. Lopez as “newly-added” defendants in this
action. See Dkt. No. 606-1 (Proposed Fourth Amended Complaint); 606-5 (Redline to the Third
Amended Complaint).
On August 11, 2022, following a hearing on Gilead’s motion, Judge Donnelly granted
Gilead leave to file its Fourth Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 626.
On August 11, 2022, Judge Donnelly also issued an asset freeze order (hereinafter, the
“Asset Freeze Order”) against several of the “newly-added” defendants—including Mr. Herrera
and Ms. Lopez. Dkt. No. 627, at ¶ 1. The Defendants, referenced in the Asset Freeze Order and
referred herein as “Asset Restrained Defendants,” were prohibited from (i) “secreting any assets
and from transferring or conveying any assets,” (id. at ¶ 2) and (ii) “transferring, selling,

mortgaging, encumbering, or otherwise impairing any ownership or other legal interest they may
have in any real property.” (id. at ¶ 3). Further, the Asset Freeze Order provided that “[a]ll assets
held by, for, or on account of any Asset Restrained Defendant, and the balance of any account for
which any of them has signature authority, shall be frozen and restrained, and any bank, brokerage
house or financial institution holding such funds is restrained from releasing them until further
order of this Court.” Id. at ¶ 6.
The Asset Freeze Order compelled each Asset Restrained Defendant to produce, to
Gilead’s counsel, (i) a “list of all assets held by, for, or on account of him/her/it, including any
account for which he/she/it has signatory authority, in any bank, brokerage house, or financial
institution, including account title, account number, and balance[,] (ii) a “list of all real properties
he/she/it owns or in which he/she/it presently has a legal interest[,] and (iii) a “list of all real
properties he/she/it previously owned or in which he/she/it previously had a legal interest from
January 1, 2019 to the present.” Id. at ¶ 8.

Finally, the Asset Freeze Order noted that “any act by any of the [Asset Restrained
Defendants] in violation of any of its terms may be considered and prosecuted as contempt of this
Court.” Id. at ¶ 11.
Judge Donnelly directed Gilead to effect service of the Asset Freeze Order and all
supporting papers by “delivering true copies thereof to any person of suitable age found at
Defendants’ business or home address, or if no such persons are found, then by any method
permitted under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at ¶ 9; Dkt. No. 628, at 5.
C. Defendant Yisel Lopez
On September 30, 2022, Gilead filed its Fourth Amended Complaint against Defendants
Armando Herrera (“Mr. Herrera”) and Ms. Lopez. Dkt. No. 630 at ¶¶ 174, 243-250, 648-650. Mr.

Herrera is alleged to have “managed, supervised, ratified, and/or personally participated in the
trafficking of counterfeit Gilead HIV and other medication.” Id. at ¶ 105. Specifically, Gilead
alleged that Mr. Herrera—who purportedly “sits at the top of the known counterfeiting
conspiracy”—set up the organization of the counterfeiting ring and exercised ultimate control over
numerous defendants. Id. at ¶¶ 105, 243. But Mr. Herrera was able to “operate incognito and
enjoy the proceeds he receive[d] from this criminal enterprise” with assistance from Ms. Lopez—
his “live-in girlfriend” who allegedly “keeps significant assets from the criminal enterprise in her
name.” Id. at ¶¶ 250, 648-49. Specifically, Gilead asserts that Mr. Herrera “owns no real estate
or vehicles in his own name;” instead, counterfeiting proceeds are maintained and laundered under
Ms. Lopez’s name. Id. at ¶ 250. Gilead’s Fourth Amended Complaint alleges that Ms. Lopez
owns—as principal—two limited liability companies whose assets include Mr. Herrera’s home
and “Mr. Herrera’s mother’s home.” Id. at ¶¶ 250, 648. On November 26, 2022, Mr. Herrera and
Ms. Lopez appeared in this instant action —represented by the same counsel—and interposed an

Answer to the Fourth Amended Complaint. Dkt. Nos. 880-881.
On March 1, 2023, Gilead and Ms. Lopez entered into a stipulation and agreement
modifying the Asset Freeze Order as applied to Ms. Lopez. Dkt. No. 952, 954. In relevant parts,
the parties agreed to modify the Asset Freeze Order to (i) reflect an agreement that Ms. Lopez (and
all other related individuals) was preliminarily enjoined from using or diluting Gilead’s marks and
(ii) convert the Asset Freeze Order into a preliminary injunction. Id. The stipulation also noted
that the provisions of the Asset Freeze Order, as outlined supra in Section I.B, remain in effect.
Id. at ¶ 4(e), 5. On March 2, 2023, the parties’ stipulation and agreement was signed by Judge
Donnelly. See Dkt. No. 954.
On January 31, 2024, counsel for Mr. Herrera and Ms. Lopez withdrew from

representation. Dkt. Nos 1293, 1295; Text Order dated January 31, 2024.
Ms. Lopez is currently proceeding pro se.
D. The Contempt Motion
On March 19, 2024 Gilead filed the instant Contempt Motion, styled as a “Motion for
Order to Show Cause for Contempt as to Yisel Lopez,” seeking “an order finding Ms. Lopez in
contempt [of the Asset Freeze Order dated August 11, 2022] and requiring her to take steps to
minimize the harm caused by her knowing violation of this Court’s orders.” See Dkt. No. 1327-
1329. In its memorandum of law in support of its contempt motion, Gilead asserts it has learned
from third-party discovery that Ms. Lopez entered into a contract for the sale of a property subject
to the Asset Freeze Order. Dkt. No. 1328, at 4. Gilead seeks an order ensuring that Ms. Lopez is
not able to dissipate the proceeds of this sale—along with additional relief “to address her prior
violations of the Asset Freeze Order.” Id. Specifically, Gilead alleges that three violations of the
Asset Freeze Order have occurred: (i) the sale of a Miami property by Ms. Lopez, (ii) the

mortgaging of her primary residence in Broward County, Florida, and (iii) contracting for the sale
of her primary residence in Broward County, Florida. Id.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
It is well established that “‘[t]he power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts.’”
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (quoting Ex parte Robinson, 19 Wall. 505, 510,
22 L.Ed. 205 (1873)); see also People v. Terry, 45 F.3d 17, 23 (2d Cir. 1995) (noting that the
power of contempt is “governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in
courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of
cases”) (citations omitted). “The underlying concern is disobedience to the orders of the
[j]udiciary, not merely the disruption of court proceedings.” Hunter TBA, Inc. v. Triple V Sales,

250 F.R.D. 116, 118-19 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (Glasser, J.) (cleaned up).
“A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both,
at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as . . . [d]isobedience or resistance
to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.” Next Invs., LLC v. Bank of China, 12
F.4th 119, 128 (2d Cir. 2021) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 401, 401(3)); Ahamed v. 563 Manhattan Inc.,
No. 19-CV-6388 (EK) (CLP), 2023 WL 4986364, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2023), report and
recommendation adopted in part, 2023 WL 6283280 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2023) (“It is well-settled
that federal courts have inherent power to punish contempt.”). “To demonstrate [contempt], ‘a
movant must establish that (1) the order the contemnor failed to comply with is clear and
unambiguous, (2) the proof of noncompliance is clear and convincing, and (3) the contemnor has
not diligently attempted to comply in a reasonable manner.’” Gucci Am., Inc. v. Weixing Li, 768
F.3d 122, 142 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Perez v. Danbury Hosp., 347 F.3d 419, 423–24 (2d Cir.
2003)). “It is peculiarly within the province of the district court to determine the meaning of its

own order,” Truskoski v. ESPN, Inc., 60 F.3d 74, 77 (2d Cir. 1995) (cleaned up), so the district
court is best positioned to determine whether the “potent weapon” of contempt is the best means
of enforcing that order.” Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n Loc. 1291 v. Phila. Marine Trade Ass’n, 389
U.S. 64, 76 (1967). “It is not necessary for the moving party to show that the violating party
disobeyed the court’s order willfully.” Sportco, Inc. v. TRT Tactical, LLC, No. 14-CV-6044 (JG)
(GRB), 2015 WL 3915618, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. June 25, 2015) (citation omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
The undersigned respectfully recommends a finding that Ms. Lopez violated the clear and
unambiguous terms of the Asset Freeze Order by causing (i) the sale of a Miami property, (ii) the
mortgaging of her primary residence in Broward County, Florida, and (iii) contracting for the sale

of her primary residence in Broward Country, Florida. In reaching its conclusion, this Court will
review the terms of the Asset Freeze Order and evaluate whether Gilead has shown a prima facie
case of contempt.
A. The Terms of the Asset Freeze Order
By its terms, the Asset Freeze Order entered by Judge Donnelly on August 11, 2022
establishes the scope and applicability of the Order upon the Asset Restrained Defendants pursuant
to the Court’s authority under the Lanham Act.
Paragraph 1 of the Asset Freeze Order identified Ms. Lopez, among others, as an Asset
Restrained Defendant. Dkt. No. 626, at ¶ 1.
Paragraph 2 of the Asset Freeze Order states that “[t]he Asset Restrained Defendants shall
be restrained from secreting any assets and from transferring or conveying any assets.” Id. at ¶ 2.
Paragraph 3 of the Asset Freeze Order states that: “[t]he Asset Restrained Defendants shall
be restrained from transferring, selling, mortgaging, encumbering, or otherwise impairing any

ownership or other legal interest they may have in any real property.” Id. at ¶ 3.
Paragraph 6 of the Asset Freeze Order states that: “[a]ll assets held by, for, or on account
of any Asset Restrained Defendant, and the balance of any account for which any of them has
signature authority, shall be frozen and restrained, and any bank, brokerage house or financial
institution holding such funds is restrained.” Id. at ¶ 6.
Paragraph 11 of the Asset Freeze Order states that: “[t]he Restrained Parties are hereby put
on notice that failure to file an opposition shall result in the immediate conversion of this Order
into a preliminary injunction which shall be deemed to take effect immediately and shall extend
during the pendency of this action. The Restrained Parties shall be deemed to have actual notice
of the issuance and terms of such preliminary injunction, and that any act by any of the Restrained

Parties in violation of any of its terms may be considered and prosecuted as contempt of this
Court.” Id. at ¶ 11.
On March 1, 2023, the parties stipulated—and the Court agreed—to convert the Asset
Freeze Order into a preliminary injunction. Dkt. Nos. 952, 954.
B. Prima Facie Case of Contempt
The undersigned respectfully recommends a finding that Ms. Lopez violated the clear and
unambiguous terms of the Asset Freeze Order by causing (i) the sale of a Miami property, (ii) the
mortgaging of her primary residence in Broward County, Florida, and (iii) contracting for the sale
of her primary residence in Broward Country, Florida.
1. The Miami Property
On or about December 1, 2019, a Limited Liability Company (“LLC”) was formed under
Florida Law named “6490 LLC.” Dkt. No. 1329-4 (Articles of Organization of 6490 LLC). The
LLC’s Articles of Organization, in its Article II, lists the street address of the LLC’s principal

office as 6490 S.W. 31 Street, Miami, FL, 33155. Id. at 1. The same Article lists the mailing
address of 6490 LLC as 6470 SW 31 Street, Miami, FL, 33155. Id. Articles III and IV of 6490
LLC’s Articles of Incorporation list Ms. Lopez as both the Registered Agent and sole manager of
the LLC. Id. at 1-2. Ms. Lopez’s address, as noted in Article IV, was listed as 6470 SW 31 Street,
Miami, FL, 33155—which is the same mailing address as 6490 LLC. Id. Ms. Lopez signed the
Articles of Incorporation on December 1, 2019—as “member or authorized representative”—
under penalty of felony as provided by Florida law. Id. at 2. The Articles of Incorporation were
subsequently filed on with Florida’s Secretary of State on December 6, 2019. Id.
On February 21, 2020, a Limited Liability Company Affidavit—prepared by counsel—
was executed for the benefit of Ms. Lopez. Dkt. No. 1329-5 (Limited Liability Company

Affidavit). The Affidavit affirmed, as outlined above, that Ms. Lopez is the “sole member and
sole Manager of 6490 LLC” which was “filed with the Florida Department of State of December
6, 2019. Id. at 1; see also Dkt. No. 1329-4. The Affidavit noted that 6490 LLC is the owner of
real property location at 6490 S.W. 31 Street, Miami, Florida, 33155 (hereinafter, the “Miami
Property”). Id.; Dkt. No. 1328, at 7. The Affidavit also noted that Ms. Lopez is authorized to
“execute any instrument affecting the [Miami Property] of behalf of the LLC.” Id. On the same
day, a Warranty Deed—executed between non-parties and 6490 LLC—granted 6490 LLC with
interest in the Miami Property. Compare Dkt. No. 1329-6 (Warranting Deed Identifying Parcel
Comprising the Miami Property) and Dkt. No. 1329-5 (Limited Liability Company Affidavit
Identifying Parcel Comprising the Miami Property).
Put simply, Ms. Lopez—as outlined by the documents produced by Gilead—exercised
control over 6490 LLC, an artificial entity serving as owner of the Miami Property located at 6490

SW 31 Street, Miami, FL, 33155 as early as February 21, 2020. See Dkt. No. 1328, at 7.
On April 27, 2023, a “Residential Contract for Sale and Purchase”—as amended on May
7, 2023—was executed between 6490 LLC as Seller and non-parties as Buyers of real property
located at 6490 SW 31 Street, Miami, FL, 33155. Dkt. No. 1329-11 (Sale Contract for the Miami
Property). The Sale Contract reflected a purchase price of $542,500.00. Id. at 1. The Sale Contract
was signed by Ms. Lopez on behalf of 6490 LLC on May 8, 2023. Id. The Sale Contract
represented that the transaction was “a cash transaction with no financing contingency.” Id. at 3.
Ms. Lopez’s own sworn testimony does not contradict the facts outlined above as to the
Miami Property. During a deposition held on October 20, 2023, Ms. Lopez was asked: “Did you
recently sell your house at 6490 Southwest 31st Street?” Dkt. No. 1329-1, at 59:15-16 (Deposition

Transcript Excerpt). Ms. Lopez responded: “Correct.” Id. at 59:17.
As to the proceeds of the sale of the Miami Property, Gilead asserts that it has elicited
sworn testimony from Ms. Lopez that the “majority of the funds from the sale of the Miami
Property went to repay the mortgage on the property, with approximately $35,000 to $40,000 left
over.” Dkt. No. 1328, at 9. Gilead has represented, upon review of the “documentary record,”
that Ms. Lopez received exactly $35,796.01 following the payoff of the mortgage on the Miami
Property. Id.
In its Contempt Motion, Gilead argues that the sale of the Miami Property is a violation of
the Asset Freeze Order. Dkt. No. 1328, at 9. Ms. Lopez disagrees and asserts that the Miami
Property was owned by a LLC—specifically 6490 LLC—and was not covered by the terms of the
Asset Freeze Order. Dkt. No. 1340. Ms. Lopez notes that “[t]he asset freeze order states that I am
not allowed to commit certain acts, it does not order the LLC’s not to do them.” Id. at 2. In
arguendo, Ms. Lopez asserts that a finding of contempt would only be appropriate if she were to

sell the LLC. Id. at 3. But since the LLC itself was not sold, Ms. Lopez argues the Asset Freeze
Order is not implicated so “the Court should not hold [Ms. Lopez] in contempt for violating
portions of an order that are not there [sic] and should not extend the [Asset Freeze Order] to mean
anything that the sophisticated plaintiff [Gilead] expressly left out of it.” Id. Ms. Lopez’s
argument is premised on the fact that her only legal interest is in the LLC itself—not the underlying
real property owned by the LLC.
But, as outlined below, Ms. Lopez’s arguments are without merit.
i. The Terms of the Asset Freeze Order are Clear and
Unambiguous

“An injunction is sufficiently clear and unambiguous if it leaves ‘no doubt in the minds of
those to whom it was addressed . . . precisely what acts are forbidden.’” CBS Broad. Inc. v.
FilmOn.com, Inc., 814 F.3d 91, 98 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Drywall Tapers & Pointers v. Local
530, 889 F.2d 389, 395 (2d Cir. 1989)). “Thus, unless the parties can ascertain from the four
corners of the order precisely what acts are forbidden, the order cannot form the basis for
contempt.” Gucci Am., 768 F.3d at 143 (cleaned up); see also GMA Accessories, Inc. v. Eminent,
Inc., No. 07-CV-3219 (LTS), 2008 WL 2355826, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2008) (“For an
injunction to be ‘clear and unambiguous’ in this context, it need only be ‘specific and definite
enough to apprise those within its scope of the conduct that is being proscribed.’”).
The terms of the Asset Freeze Order (Dkt. No. 627), later converted to a preliminary
injunction (Dkt. No. 952, at ¶ 6), are clear and unambiguous. The Asset Freeze Order clearly
identified Ms. Lopez as an Asset Restrained Defendant subject to the terms of the Order. Dkt. No.
627, at ¶ 1. Paragraph 2 and 3 of the Asset Freeze Order prohibited, or restrained, Ms. Lopez from
“transferring or conveying any assets” (Id. at ¶ 2) and from “transferring, selling, . . . or otherwise
impairing any ownership or other legal interest [she] may have in any real property.” Id. at ¶ 3.

ii. Gilead Has Asserted Clear and Convincing Evidence of
Violations

It is undisputed that Ms. Lopez sold the Miami Property. See Dkt. No. 1329-11 (Sale
Contract for the Miami Property reflecting Ms. Lopez’s signature); Dkt. No. 1329-1, at 59:15-17
(representing, via sworn testimony, that the Miami Property was sold); Dkt. No. 1346, at 22:8-25
(representing to this Court, during an April 1, 2024 status conference, that the Miami Property was
sold). Indeed, Ms. Lopez effectively concedes that the Miami Property was sold. Yet, Ms. Lopez
argues that she cannot be held in contempt for violating the Asset Freeze Order by selling the
Miami Property because the Miami Property was owned and sold by a LLC. Dkt. No. 1341, at 2-
3. This Court rejects Ms. Lopez’s argument.
“It is of course true that courts cannot enjoin the entire universe of potential violators of its
orders.” Eli Lilly & Co. v. Gottstein, 617 F.3d 186, 195 (2d Cir. 2010). Indeed, those who are
acting independently of the enjoined party and whose own rights have not been adjudged cannot
be bound by an injunction. Id. (citing Regal Knitwear Co. v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 9, 13-14 (1945)).
But third parties “who are in active concert or participation” with the enjoined parties can
themselves be enjoined. Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)). Rule 65(d)(2) thus “gives force to
injunctions and prevents parties from violating them by proxy. Id. Therefore, “[D]efendants may
not nullify a decree by carrying out prohibited acts through aiders and abettors, although they were
not parties to the original proceeding.” Regal Knitwear, 324 U.S. at 14; N. Atl. Operating Co. v.
Evergreen Distributors, LLC, No. 13-CV-4974 (ERK) (VMS), 2013 WL 5603596, at *2 (E.D.N.Y.
Oct. 11, 2013) (adopting report and recommendation enjoining third parties in an action brought
under the Lanham Act); Abbott Lab’ys v. Adelphia Supply USA, No. 15-CV-5826 (CBA)(LB),
2019 WL 6211373, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2019) (finding that Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(C)
prevents enjoined defendants from assisting third parties in engaging in activities “that would

violate the injunction without themselves running afoul of the injunction.”). This Circuit has also
found that third parties who reside outside of the territorial jurisdiction of a district court may
themselves be subject to that court’s jurisdiction if, with actual notice of the court’s order, they
actively aid and abet a party in violating that order. Eli Lilly, 617 F.3d at 195 (citing Waffenschmidt
v. MacKay, 763 F.2d 711, 714 (5th Cir.1985)).
In light of the reach and applicability of the Asset Freeze Order’s injunction to 6490 LLC,
Ms. Lopez’s argument fails. This Court finds that 6490 LLC was a corporate entity used by Ms.
Lopez to aid and abet violations of the Asset Freeze Order by owning and later selling the Miami
Property—the latter being a prohibited act. Ms. Lopez was the “sole member and sole Manager
of 6490 LLC.” See Dkt. No. 1328, at 7; 1329-4. It is undisputed that Ms. Lopez caused 6490 LLC

to initiate and effectuate the sale of the Miami Property. See Dkt. No. 1329-11 (Sale Contract for
the Miami Property bearing Ms. Lopez’s signature on behalf of 6490 LLC); Dkt. No. 1329-1, at
59:15-16 (Testimony by Ms. Lopez confirming the sale of the Miami Property).
In short, the thrust of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(C) covers the exact scenario manufactured
by Ms. Lopez and rejects Ms. Lopez’s contention that 6490 LLC must have also been explicitly
bound by the Asset Freeze Order. Indeed, Regal Knitwear indicates that the binding effect of an
order does not depend on the insertion of conclusory words such as “successors and assigns.” 324
U.S. at 14; see also 11A Charles A. Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure
§ 2956 (3d ed. 2020). Rather, the Court must look to the actual relationship between the persons
enjoined and the third party, and if the relationship qualifies as one of those listed in Rule 65(d),
third persons will be bound by the injunction whether or not the order specifically refers to
successors and assigns. Id.; People of State of N.Y. by Vacco v. Operation Rescue Nat., 80 F.3d
64 (2d Cir. 1996) (“Where successors and assigns are in active concert or participation with a

defendant or respondent in the violation of an order, or are instrumentalities through which the
defendant or respondent seeks to evade an order, they are brought within the scope of contempt
proceedings by Rule 65(d).”).
Further, Ms. Lopez is substantially intertwined with 6490 LLC because Ms. Lopez
exercises considerable control—if not sole control—over 6490 LLC’s operations. As sole member
and manager, Ms. Lopez entered into agreements on the LLC’s behalf and exercised control over
the disbursement of the LLC’s funds—whether used to repay the mortgage owned by the LLC
(Dkt. No. 1328, at 9) or Ms. Lopez’s own attorneys’ fees (Dkt. No. 1346, at 17:4-20). “Courts in
this Circuit have found ‘active concert’ between non-parties and already-enjoined parties in cases
where an enjoined party is substantially intertwined with a non-party, including the shared

occupation of office space, payment of employee expenses between the non-party and enjoined
party, considerable control by the enjoined party over the non-party’s operations, and other
substantial interconnections . . . .” John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Book Dog Books, LLC, 327 F. Supp.
3d 606, 638 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting In re Sledziejowski, 533 B.R. 408, 424 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
2015)).
Finally, 6490 LLC had actual notice of the Asset Freeze Order. First, Gilead’s Fourth
Amended Complaint alleged that Ms. Lopez owns—as principal—two limited liability companies
whose assets include Mr. Herrera’s home and “Mr. Herrera’s mother’s home.” Id. at ¶¶ 250, 648.
Next, where (i) Florida Law allows limited liability companies to be served through their registered
agents (Fla. Stat. Ann. § 48.062), (ii) Ms. Lopez served as a registered agent to 6490 LLC (Dkt.
No. 1329-4), and (iii) Ms. Lopez was personally served with the Asset Freeze Order by Gilead
(Dkt. No. 717), 6490 LLC had actual notice of the applicability of the Asset Freeze Order to its
activities. See also Abbott Lab’ys, 2019 WL 6211373, at *5 (finding that Fed. R. Civ. P.

65(d)(2)(C) prevents enjoined defendants from assisting others in engaging in activities “that
would violate the injunction without themselves running afoul of the injunction.”). Although 6490
LLC is a Florida LLC, 6490 LLC is still subject to jurisdiction in this District by actively aiding
and abetting Ms. Lopez in violating the Asset Freeze Order despite receiving actual notice of the
Court’s order. Eli Lilly, 617 F.3d 186, 195 (citing Waffenschmidt v. MacKay, 763 F.2d 711, 714
(5th Cir.1985)). And, as Gilead notes in their supplemental briefing (Dkt. No. 1463), in both New
York and Florida, limited liability companies may be served via their registered agent. See Fla.
Stat. Ann. § 48.062 (2) and N.Y. LLC Law § 302(a).
Accordingly, this Court finds that Gilead has established that the proof of Ms. Lopez’s
noncompliance is clear and convincing. This Court proceeds to determine whether Ms. Lopez

made a showing of diligent compliance.
iii. Ms. Lopez Failed to Make a Showing of Diligent Compliance
“Reasonable diligence, at the very least, requires a party to develop reasonably effective
methods of compliance.” Aquavit Pharms., Inc. v. U-Bio Med, Inc., No. 19-CV-3351 (VEC), 2020
WL 1900502, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2020) (cleaned up). “A party does not act with reasonable
diligence in obeying a court order if it ‘complied reluctantly’ or ‘after a contempt motion had been
filed.’” New Falls Corp. v. Soni Holdings, LLC, No. 19-CV-449 (HG)(LGD), 2022 WL 4357410,
at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2022) (quoting E.E.O.C. v. Local 638, 81 F.3d 1162, 1176 (2d Cir.
1996)).
Here, the record shows that Ms. Lopez has not diligently attempted, in a reasonable
manner, to comply with the Asset Freeze Order. As noted supra in Section III.B.1.ii, Ms. Lopez
may not shield herself from contempt liability by causing a LLC—of whom she is the sole owner,
member, and manager—to engage in prohibited acts on her behalf. Despite Ms. Lopez’s

awareness of the terms of the Asset Freeze Order as applied to her (Dkt. No. 1328, at 10), Ms.
Lopez caused the Miami Property to be sold in express violation of Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Asset
Freeze Order. Dkt. No. 627, at ¶¶ 2-3.
Ms. Lopez’s proffered rationale—to remit payment for outstanding attorneys’ fees (Dkt.
No. 1346, at 14:4-20)—misses the mark. The Asset Freeze Order, in its current form, does not
provide for a release for the purpose of covering attorneys’ fees. Indeed, the parties have
previously been able to bargain for a modification of the Asset Freeze Order when other financial
constraints arose. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 952. Further, Ms. Lopez was represented by counsel at the
time of the sale of the Miami Property in May 2023. See Dkt. No. 863 (Notice of Appearance of
Roman Leonov as counsel to Armando Herrera and Yisel Lopez dated November 26, 2022); Text

Order dated January 31, 2024 (granting motion to withdraw as counsel to Armando Herrera and
Yisel Lopez).
Therefore, Ms. Lopez does not have the benefit of asserting a lack of awareness of the plain
terms of the Asset Freeze Order as applied to her and the restrictions contained therein. Simply
put, Ms. Lopez has failed to make a showing of reasonable diligence in attempting to comply with
the terms of the Asset Freeze Order. See Cricut, Inc. v. APA Tech. Co., 698 F. Supp. 3d 538, 548
(E.D.N.Y. 2023) (finding a failure to diligently comply where “the Defendants appear to take ‘a
reactive approach towards compliance’ that required ‘prompting from Plaintiff.’) (citing Aquavit
Pharms., 2020 WL 1900502, at *9). This Court thus finds that Ms. Lopez failed to diligently
comply with the clear and unambiguous terms of the Asset Freeze Order.
Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully recommends that Ms. Lopez be found liable and
held in contempt of the Court’s Asset Freeze Order and injunction by causing the sale of the Miami

Property on or about May 8, 2023.
2. The Broward Property
In its Contempt Motion, Gilead also argues that Ms. Lopez has violated those terms of the
Asset Freeze Order by (i) mortgaging her primary residence in Broward County, Florida, and (ii)
contracting for the sale of the property. As outlined below, this Court agrees and respectfully
recommends that Ms. Lopez also be held in contempt for these violations of the Court’s Asset
Freeze Order.
On or about July 24, 2020, a LLC was formed under Florida Law named “660 Enclave
LLC.” Dkt. No. 1329-7 (Articles of Organization of 660 Enclave LLC). The LLC’s Articles of
Organization, in its Article II, lists the street address of the LLC’s principal office as 660 Enclave

Circle West, Pembroke Pines, FL, 33027. Id. at 1. The same Article lists the mailing address of
660 Enclave LLC as 6470 SW 31 Street, Miami, FL, 33155. Id. Articles III and IV of 660 Enclave
LLC’s Articles of Incorporation lists Ms. Lopez as both the Registered Agent and sole manager of
the LLC. Id. at 1-2. Ms. Lopez’s address, as noted in Article IV, was listed as 6470 SW 31 Street,
Miami, FL, 33155—which is the same mailing address as 660 Enclave LLC. Id. Ms. Lopez signed
the Articles of Incorporation on July 24, 2020—as “member or authorized representative”—under
penalty of felony as provided by Florida law. Id. at 2. The Articles of Incorporation were
subsequently filed on with Florida’s Secretary of State on July 27, 2020. Id.
On or about September 30, 2020, a Warranty Deed was executed by a non-party in favor
of 660 Enclave LLC for interest in the real property located at 660 Enclave Circle West, Pembroke
Pines, FL, 33027 (the “Broward Property”).
At bottom, Ms. Lopez—as outlined by the documents produced by Gilead—exercised

control over 660 Enclave LLC, an artificial entity serving as owner of the Broward Property
located at 660 Enclave Circle West, Pembroke Pines, FL, 33027 as early as September 30, 2020.
See Dkt. No. 1328, at 7.
On or about October 13, 2020, a Mortgage, Assignment of Leases and Rent, and Security
Agreement was executed by and among 660 Enclave LLC and two non-parties in the amount of
$520,000.00. Dkt. No. 1329-15; see also Dkt. No. 1329-8. As Gilead notes, this Mortgage
Agreement was executed and encumbered the property prior to the entry of the August 11, 2022
Asset Freeze Order. Dkt. No. 1328, at 10. The Mortgage Agreement was signed by Ms. Lopez
on behalf of 660 Enclave LLC of which she is the sole member. Dkt. No. 1329-15, at 10.3
But, on February 23, 2023, a second Mortgage and Security Agreement was executed by

and among 660 Enclave LLC and a non-party in the amount of $750,000.00 concerning the
Broward Property. Dkt. No. 1329-16, at 1-2, 19. This second Mortgage Agreement was also
signed by Ms. Lopez on behalf of 660 Enclave LLC. Id. at 18.
On March 19, 2024, Gilead—in its Contempt Motion—noted that, as a matter of urgency,
it had learned that Ms. Lopez was preparing to “sell the Broward property in further gross violation
of the Asset Freeze Order.” Dkt. No. 1328, at 10. Gilead asserted that it received paperwork “from
the agency representing Ms. Lopez” representing that Ms. Lopez has contracted with a non-party
to “sell the Broward Property for $1.4 million.” Id. The sale of the Broward Property, from

3 The Court also notes that an individual named Armando Herrera served as a witness to the execution of
the Mortgage Agreement. Dkt. No. 1329-15, at 10.
Gilead’s understanding, was scheduled to close on April 3, 2024. Id. Gilead sought to restrain the
sale of the property because “if not immediately restrained, Ms. Lopez will dissipate the proceeds
of the sale of the Broward Property in further violation of the Asset Freeze Order, thereby
irreparably prejudicing Gilead.” Id.

On March 22, 2024, Gilead’s Contempt Motion was referred to the undersigned by Judge
Donnelly. On March 28, 2024, Ms. Lopez filed her Opposition to Gilead’s Contempt Motion
arguing, inter alia, Gilead’s request for a finding of contempt as to the sale of the Broward Property
is premature as “the 660 property was not even sold yet” so she cannot be “held in contempt of an
order preventing an action before such actions takes place[.]” Id. at 3. The undersigned notes that
Ms. Lopez’s letter, while filed on March 28, 2024, was dated March 20, 2024. Id. at 4.
On April 1, 2024, the undersigned held a telephonic conference where counsel for Gilead
and Ms. Lopez appeared to discuss Gilead’s Contempt Motion and the sale of the Broward
Property—a transaction that, according to Gilead’s application, was scheduled to close on April 3,
2024. See Dkt. No. 1336; Minute Entry dated April 1, 2024.

During the conference, the undersigned asked Ms. Lopez to confirm whether the sale of
the Broward Property was still expected to close on April 3, 2024. Dkt. No. 1346, at 4:5-9
(Conference Transcript). Ms. Lopez responded that the Broward Property had already been sold
on March 28, 2024. Id. at 4:10-11; 5:1-7. The undersigned expressed concern that, based on
Gilead’s own affidavit of service of its Contempt Motion (Dkt. No. 1331) and the Court’s
subsequent Scheduling Order (Dkt. Nos. 1336, 1343), Ms. Lopez was clearly on notice that the
sale would be contested by Gilead. Id. at 11:8-16.
Ms. Lopez explained, in response, that the buyer expressed an interest in closing on the
Broward Property earlier and—where a title search did not reveal a prohibition on selling the
property—she agreed to advance the closing date. Id. at 11:19-25, 12:1-17. As to the proceeds
from the sale of the Broward Property, Ms. Lopez represented that the LLC—660 Enclave LLC—
received “1.4 million.” Id. at 12:13-16. But, after paying off “two loans on the house,” Ms. Lopez
represented that the 660 Enclave LLC was left with approximately $13,000.00. Id. at 13:18-25;

14:1-5.
During the conference, this Court also noted that Ms. Lopez’s representations weighed in
favor of Gilead supplementing its Contempt Motion. Id. at 27:20-25; 28:1-4. The Court granted
Gilead leave to engage in limited discovery in support of its Contempt Motion. See Minute Entry
and Order dated April 1, 2024. Following the conclusion of the limited discovery period, Gilead
filed a Supplement Memorandum of Law in Support of its pending Contempt Motion on June 5,
2024. Dkt. No. 1375 (Supplemental Briefing).
Gilead’s Supplemental Briefing argues that Ms. Lopez’s representations at the April 1,
2024 conference were “a knowing lie, expressly made under penalty of perjury, meant to deceive
Gilead and this Court.” Id. at 2. Gilead asserts that Ms. Lopez—aware of Gilead’s Contempt

Motion—rushed the sale of the Broward Property. Id. at 1. Gilead further argues that the sale of
the Broward Property was completed before Ms. Lopez served a Declaration affirming that the
Broward Property had not yet been sold—constituting what Gilead deems a false statement. Id. at
4. Gilead represents that Ms. Lopez had received proceeds from the sale on March 27, 2024 via a
new bank account opened at Truist Bank. Id.; see also Dkt. No. 1375. But, as Gilead’s
Supplemental Briefing outlines, the proceeds from the sale of the Broward Property had largely
been dissipated by the time the parties convened for a conference on April 1, 2024.
In its Contempt Motion, Gilead argues that two occurrences related to the Broward
Property violated the terms of the Asset Freeze Order. First, the encumbrance on the Broward
Property created by the execution of the second Mortgage Agreement violated Paragraph 3 of the
Asset Freeze Order. Dkt. No. 1328, at 10; cf. Dkt. No. 627, at ¶ 3 (“The Asset Restrained
Defendants shall be restrained from transferring, selling, mortgaging, encumbering, or otherwise
impairing any ownership or other legal interest they may have in any real property.”). Second, the

subsequent sale of the Broward Property in March 2023 violated the terms of the Asset Freeze
Order. Dkt. No. 1328, at 10; Dkt. No. 1375, at 6.
This Court finds that its earlier analysis—as applied to the sale of the Miami Property—is
largely applicable to Ms. Lopez’s encumbrance and subsequent sale of the Broward Property. First
the terms of the Asset Freeze Order (Dkt. No. 627), later converted to a preliminary injunction
(Dkt. No. 952, at ¶ 6), are clear and unambiguous as to encumbrance and sale of assets. CBS
Broad. Inc., 814 F.3d 91, 98 (2d Cir. 2016) (“An injunction is sufficiently clear and unambiguous
if it leaves ‘no doubt in the minds of those to whom it was addressed . . . precisely what acts are
forbidden.’”) (citations omitted). The Asset Freeze Order clearly identified Ms. Lopez as an Asset
Restrained Defendant subject to the terms of the Order. Dkt. No. 627, at ¶ 1. Paragraph 2 and 3

of the Asset Freeze Order prohibited, or restrained, Ms. Lopez from “transferring or conveying
any assets” (id. at ¶ 2) and from “transferring, selling, mortgaging, encumbering, or otherwise
impairing any ownership or other legal interest [she] may have in any real property.” Id. at ¶ 3
(emphasis added).
Despite the clear and unambiguous language of the Asset Freeze Order, a second Mortgage
and Security Agreement was executed by and among 660 Enclave LLC and a non-party in the
amount of $750,000.00 encumbering the Broward Property. Dkt. No. 1329-16, at 1-2, 19. This
second Mortgage Agreement was signed by Ms. Lopez on behalf of 660 Enclave LLC. Id. at 18.
Where a mortgage constitutes an encumbrance on a property (21647 LLC v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l
Tr. Co. as Tr. for New Century Home Equity Loan Tr. 2005-3, No. 22-2793, 2023 WL 7648624,
at *3 (2d Cir. Nov. 15, 2023)), Ms. Lopez’s execution of the second mortgage on February 23,
2023 violated Paragraph 3 of the Asset Freeze Order. Further, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Asset
Freeze Order restrained Ms. Lopez—and, as outlined supra, entities proxies acting actively in

concert with Ms. Lopez—from “secreting,” “transferring,” and “selling” assets that she owns or
has a legal interest in. Dkt. No. 627 at ¶¶2-3; People of State of N.Y. by Vacco v. Operation Rescue
Nat., 80 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 1996) (“Where successors and assigns are in active concert or
participation with a defendant or respondent in the violation of an order, or are instrumentalities
through which the defendant or respondent seeks to evade an order, they are brought within the
scope of contempt proceedings by Rule 65(d).”). But Ms. Lopez represented to the undersigned,
on April 1, 2024, that the Broward Property was sold on or about March 28, 2024. See Dkt No.
1346, at 5:1-7; see also Dkt. No. 1375 at 2 (supplemental brief by Gilead asserting, inter alia, that
contempt discovery has revealed that Ms. Lopez has likely intentionally misrepresented that date
of sale to the undersigned).

This Court need not address whether Ms. Lopez intentionally lied to the Court at the April
1, 2024 conference because, regardless of disagreements as to the exact date of sale of the Broward
Property, the Broward Property was unquestionably sold following the entry of the Asset Freeze
Order. Therefore, the clear and unambiguous terms of the Asset Freeze Order were violated by
Ms. Lopez when she (i) mortgaged her primary residence in Broward County, Florida, and (ii)
contracted for the sale of the property. As with the Miami Property (and likely in a more flagrant
manner), Ms. Lopez has failed to make a showing of diligent compliance. This failure is further
exacerbated by the fact that Ms. Lopez appears to have hastened the sale of the Broward Property
upon notice of this Court’s hearing on Gilead’s Contempt Motion—a flagrant violation of the
Court’s orders.
Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully recommends that Ms. Lopez be found in liable
for contempt of the August 11, 2022 Asset Freeze Order.

IV. RECOMMENDED PENALTIES
Should this Court’s Report and Recommendation be adopted as to liability, the undersigned
recommends remedial penalties be imposed to secure future compliance with court orders and
restore the original purpose of the Asset Freeze Order. See S. New England Tel. Co. v. Global
NAPs Inc., 624 F.3d 123, 146 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[c]ivil contempt sanctions may serve ‘dual
purposes’: securing ‘future compliance with court orders’ and ‘compensa[ting] the party that has
been wronged’”) (quoting Paramedics Electromedicina Comercial, Limitada v. GE Med. Sys. Info.
Techs., Inc., 369 F.3d 645, 657 (2d Cir. 2004) (alteration in original)); Manhattan Indus., Inc. v.
Sweater Bee by Banff, Ltd.., 885 F.2d 1, 5 (2d Cir.1989) (“[civil contempt sanctions are] remedial
and compensatory, not punitive.”); Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp. v. United States, 493 F.2d 112, 115 (2d

Cir. 1973) (“The hallmark of civil contempt is that the sanction imposed is only contingent and
coercive.”).
Further, in the interest of fairness and consistency, this Court recommends that the penalties
imposed remain consistent (in both scope and substance) with penalties imposed for violations of
asset freeze orders in this instant action. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 547 (Contempt Order as to Defendants
Venkata Srinivas Mannava and DSP Consulting Inc, Swetha Ketineni and Babashiloh Enterprises
LLC). But where applicable, the proposed penalties should be tailored to fit the individual
circumstances arising out of the instant Contempt Motion.
In light of the foregoing, the undersigned respectfully recommends that penalties be
imposed against Ms. Lopez for violations of this Court’s Asset Freeze Order (Dkt. No. 627) as
follows:
1. Ms. Lopez should be ordered to deposit the sum of $400,596.01 into the Clerk of

Court’s escrow account. This sum represents Gilead’s estimations of the sums secreted and
dissipated in violation of this Court’s Asset Freeze Order. See Dkt. No. 1375, at 6-7; Dkt. No.
1375-6; compare Dkt. No. 547 (ordering contempt defendants to deposit the sum of $3,320,000.00
into the Clerk of Court’s escrow account—a sum representing the amount of money hidden and
secreted in violation of an asset freeze order).
2. Ms. Lopez should be ordered to file with the Court, no later than seven days from
the date of issuance of contempt penalties, a submission via ECF describing her efforts to recover
or raise funds in satisfaction or partial satisfaction of her obligation under paragraph 1 of this
Order. The submission shall consist of admissible evidence, such as an affidavit, declaration,
and/or documentary evidence. Following this initial submission, Ms. Lopez shall file a further

submission with the Court via ECF every 14 days thereafter, until such time as her obligation under
paragraph 1 of this Order is fulfilled or the Court orders otherwise.
3. If Plaintiffs believe that Ms. Lopez is not fulfilling her obligations under to the
contempt penalties, and the parties are not able to resolve the issue via the meet-and-confer
process, Plaintiffs should be ordered to file a motion or order to show cause with the Court. Ms.
Lopez is warned that if she fails to comply with the Court’s order she may be subject to additional
sanctions, up to and including incarceration.4

4 It is well-established that incarceration may be imposed upon civil contemnors for egregious
violations existing court orders. See, e.g., Schwarz v. ThinkStrategy Cap. Mgmt. LLC, No. 09 CIV.9346
(PAE), 2017 WL 5558682, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2017) (where a defendant was incarcerated for at least
22 months pursuant to the court’s civil contempt finding). Such recommendations (including referrals to
4. In furtherance of the obligations set forth above, the Court’s Asset Freeze Order
should be modified as follows:
a. Any bank, brokerage house, or financial institution holding frozen assets
under the Asset Freeze Order shall continue to hold such assets except as

set forth in this Order.
b. Counsel for Gilead or Ms. Lopez may immediately serve this Order upon
the banks, brokerage houses, or financial institutions identified in the
subparagraphs below.
c. Upon service of this Order upon Truist Bank, Truist Bank shall transfer the
balance of the account ending in 2640 (account holder: 660 Enclave LLC;
signatory: Yisel Lopez) to the Clerk of the Court pursuant to the instructions
in subparagraphs d and e below.
d. Within three business days of receipt of this Order, Truist Bank shall deposit
the amount specified above into the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of New York by check(s) made payable to “Clerk, U.S.
District Court.” The check(s) shall state the caption and docket number of
this case (“Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Safe Chain Solutions, LLC, 21-CV-
4106”) and be sent, along with a copy of this Order, by FedEx Priority
Overnight to “Brenna B. Mahoney, Clerk of Court, Theodore Roosevelt
United States Courthouse, 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201.”

the United States Attorneys’ Office or other appropriate authorities) may be issued by a magistrate judge
in a report and recommendation—though the decision to issue such sanctions remains within the discretion
of the district judge. See, e.g., Benthos Master Fund, Ltd. v. Etra, No. 20-CV-3384 (VEC), 2023 WL
4350594, at *2-7 (S.D.N.Y. July 5, 2023).
The Clerk of Court shall notify the Court upon receiving and depositing the
check(s).
e. Immediately upon conveyance of such funds to the Clerk of Court, Truist
Bank shall send a digital scan of the check(s) by electronic mail to counsel

for Gilead Geoffrey Potter (CounterfeitGileadMedications@pbwt.com and
gpotter@pbwt.com), counsel for Gilead, and Yisel Lopez
(yisellopez87@yahoo.com); and shall send a copy of the check(s) to all
judges assigned to this matter.
f. The Order will remain in effect until further order of this Court directing
disbursement of the funds deposited into the Registry Fund of the Treasury.
g. Except to the extent inconsistent with this Order, the provisions of the
Court’s Asset Freeze Order shall remain in effect.
5. All additional payments made by Ms. Lopez to the Clerk of the Court pursuant to
this Order shall be made via check(s) made payable to “Clerk, U.S. District Court.” The check(s)

shall state the caption and docket number of this case (“Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Safe Chain
Solutions, LLC, 21-CV-4106”) and be sent, along with a copy of this Order, by FedEx Priority
Overnight to “Brenna B. Mahoney, Clerk of Court, Theodore Roosevelt United States Courthouse,
225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201.” The Clerk of Court shall notify the Court upon
receiving and depositing the check(s). Immediately upon conveyance of any funds to the Clerk of
Court, Ms. Lopez shall send a digital scan of the check(s) by electronic mail to Geoffrey Potter
(CounterfeitGileadMedications@pbwt.com and gpotter@pbwt.com), counsel for Gilead, and shall
send a copy of the check(s) to all judges assigned to this matter.
6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to receive and deposit all funds received under
this Order into an interest-bearing account, whereupon the funds will be enjoined and held in
constructive trust under the custody and administration of the Court to secure and preserve the
availability of the relief Plaintiffs seek (including the equitable remedies of disgorgement and

restitution) until the final disposition of this action. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 67.1, the Clerk
is directed to deduct from the income on the investment a fee consistent with that authorized by
the Judicial Conference of the United States and set by the Director of the Administrative Office.
V. CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the undersigned finds that Gilead has sufficiently demonstrated
Ms. Lopez’s violations of the Asset Freeze Order. Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully
recommends that (i) Gilead’s Contempt Motion be granted; (ii) Ms. Lopez be held in contempt for
violating the Asset Freeze Order; and (iii) sanctions be imposed upon Ms. Lopez as outlined supra
in Section IV.
A copy of this Report and Recommendation is being electronically served on counsel. This

Court directs Plaintiffs’ counsel to serve a copy of this Report and Recommendation by email,
overnight mail, and first-class mail to Ms. Lopez and to file proof of service on ECF by August
30, 2024 at the following addresses:
YISEL LOPEZ
15853 SW 10 STREET
PEMBROKE PINES, FL, 33027
yisellopez87@yahoo.com
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within 14 days after
service of this Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a) & (d) (addressing computation of days). Any requests for an extension
of time for filing objections must be directed to Judge Donnelly. Failure to file objections within
this period designating the particular issues to be reviewed waives the right to appeal the district
court’s order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); Wagner & Wagner, LLP v.
Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis, Brittingham, Gladd & Carwile, P.C., 596 F.3d 84, 92 (2d Cir. 2010);
Kotlyarsky v. United States Dep’t of Just., No. 22-2750, 2023 WL 7648618 (2d Cir. 2023); see

also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
August 29, 2024 SO ORDERED.

/s/ Joseph A. Marutollo
JOSEPH A. MARUTOLLO
United States Magistrate Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10766839. Public record. Not legal advice.