The opinion
USCA11 Case: 23-12511 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2025 Page: 1 of 28
[PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-12511
____________________
RAQUEL CAMPS,
in her capacity as the personal representative
of the Estate of Alberto Camps,
ALICIA KRUEGER,
in her individual capacity, and in her capacity
as the personal representative of the
Estate of Ruben Bonet,
MARCELA SANTUCHO,
in her individual capacity, and in her capacity
as the personal representative of the
Estate of Ana Maria Villarreal de Santucho,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
EDUARDO CAPPELLO,
in his individual capacity, and in his capacity
USCA11 Case: 23-12511 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2025 Page: 2 of 28
2 Opinion of the Court 23-12511
as the personal representative of the
Estate of Eduardo Cappello,
Plaintiff-Appellee
Cross Appellant,
versus
ROBERTO GUILLERMO BRAVO,
Defendant-Appellant
Cross Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-24294-LFL
____________________
Before JORDAN and BRASHER, Circuit Judges, and GERAGHTY, ∗ Dis-
trict Judge.
JORDAN, Circuit Judge:
Sometime after three o’clock on the morning of August 22,
1972, military officers at the Almirante Zar Naval Base in Trelew,
Argentina, removed nineteen unarmed political prisoners from
∗ The Honorable Sarah Geraghty, United States District Judge for the North-
ern District of Georgia, sitting by designation.
USCA11 Case: 23-12511 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2025 Page: 3 of 28
23-12511 Opinion of the Court 3
their cells and shot them in what became known as the Trelew
Massacre. The plaintiffs in this action—Raquel Camps, Alicia Krue-
ger, Marcela Santucho, and Eduardo Cappello—are the surviving
family members of four of those prisoners: Alberto Camps, Ruben
Bonet, Ana Maria Villarreal de Santucho, and Eduardo Cappello
(who shares the same name as one of the plaintiffs). The defendant,
Roberto Guillermo Bravo, was one of the officers who participated
in the massacre.
In 2020, the plaintiffs filed suit against Mr. Bravo, seeking
compensatory and punitive damages under the Torture Victim
Protection Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 note, for the extrajudicial killing
and torture of their relatives. A jury found Mr. Bravo liable for the
deaths and awarded the plaintiffs a total of more than $24 million.
Mr. Bravo now appeals, arguing that the district court erred
by equitably tolling the TVPA statute of limitations on the plain-
tiffs’ claims until October 15, 2012. Because the district court failed
to make sufficient findings of fact to allow us to properly analyze
its ruling on equitable tolling, we vacate and remand for additional
findings.
I
For much of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, Argentina was gov-
erned by various military dictatorships. In 1966, the military over-
threw Argentina’s democratically-elected government, ushering in
a period of violence and instability marked by state-directed tor-
ture, killing, and kidnapping. The military regime was extremely
USCA11 Case: 23-12511 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2025 Page: 4 of 28
4 Opinion of the Court 23-12511
oppressive, arresting and “disappearing” many of those it consid-
ered to be “subversives.” 1
A
On August 15, 1972, a group of twenty-five political prison-
ers escaped from Rawson Prison in Argentina. Nineteen of the es-
capees surrendered to the government and were transferred to the
Almirante Zar Naval Base in Trelew, Argentina. Mr. Bravo, a com-
missioned officer in the Argentine military, was stationed at the Al-
mirante Zar Naval Base in August of 1972.
Taking the facts in favor of the jury’s verdict, in the early
hours of August 22, 1972, Mr. Bravo and three other officers en-
tered the cellblock on the Naval base, ordered all nineteen prison-
ers out of their cells, and opened fire on them. Mr. Bravo was the
first of the officers to shoot, emptying his entire magazine. Some
of the prisoners were shot “at point-blank range”; one of the vic-
tims was shot from behind, execution-style in the neck; and a preg-
nant woman was shot “from her breasts down.”
Sixteen of the prisoners were killed, while three survived
with severe injuries. Alberto Camps—shot in the stomach by Mr.
Bravo as he hid in his cell—was among the initial survivors of the
Trelew massacre.
1 The period from the early 1970s to the early 1980s is known as the “Dirty
War.” See Sam Ferguson, The Disappeared: Remnants of a Dirty War 1 (2023);
Paul H. Lewis, Guerillas and Generals: The “Dirty War” in Argentina 5 (2002).
USCA11 Case: 23-12511 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2025 Page: 5 of 28
23-12511 Opinion of the Court 5
The military government sought to cover up the murders,
adopting as the official narrative that the officers had shot the pris-
oners in self-defense during an escape attempt. Soldiers threatened
witnesses who might contradict the official story.
A military investigation culminated in a 1972 General Audi-
tor’s Report, which set out the government’s position that the pris-
oners had been killed by the officers in self-defense. That report,
which included a contemporaneous statement from Mr. Camps
that conflicted with the government’s version of events, was la-
beled “Top Secret” and kept from the public until 2008.
A couple of months after the massacre, the military govern-
ment sent Mr. Bravo and his family to the United States in order to
make him “harder to find.” It also engaged in significant press cen-
sorship, criminalizing the publication of any alternative to the offi-
cial version of events.
B
Between 1973 and 1976, a democratically-elected govern-
ment was briefly in power in Argentina, but a coup in 1976 brought
a return to military rule. The new military regime engaged in a
“systematic campaign of extermination against [subversives]” and
is considered to have presided over one of the “darkest period[s]”
in Argentine history. See D.E. 132 at 65:1–6.
Those who sought justice for the victims of the Trelew Mas-
sacre (e.g., by contesting the official account) were targeted by the
military regime. For example, Mr. Camps—who survived the
shooting and gave a statement to investigators that contradicted
USCA11 Case: 23-12511 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2025 Page: 6 of 28
6 Opinion of the Court 23-12511
the regime’s position—was killed by the military in 1977. His
brother was kidnapped and was “disappeared” in 1976, and his wife
was “disappeared” in 1977, leaving his daughter, Raquel Camps,
orphaned. Eduardo Cappello’s parents filed a lawsuit against the
government in 1974, seeking justice for the murder of their son. In
1977, the military regime “disappeared” their other son, along with
his wife and their 12-year-old son.
Lawyers who attempted to represent the victims and their
families put themselves in grave danger. Alicia Krueger, Ruben
Bonet’s widow, filed a lawsuit seeking monetary compensation
from the Argentine government in 1972. Two years later, Ms.
Krueger’s lawyer was murdered by one of the regime’s “death
squads.” This forced Ms. Krueger and her family to go into hiding.
They eventually fled to France as political refugees and changed
their last name. The sister of Ana Maria Villarreal de Santucho,
who was a lawyer herself, filed a lawsuit on Ms. Santucho’s behalf
but was “disappeared” by the regime in 1976. And Ms. Santucho’s
daughter, Marcela Santucho, was herself kidnapped and detained
by the military for a week when she was just a child. She later fled
the country and did not return permanently until 2008.
Military rule persisted in Argentina until 1983, when the
country’s citizens elected a democratic government. The new gov-
ernment, however, was fragile and the military remained influen-
tial. When the democratic government attempted to form a truth
commission and prosecute military leaders for human rights
abuses, the military plotted its overthrow, engaging in a series of
USCA11 Case: 23-12511 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2025 Page: 7 of 28
23-12511 Opinion of the Court 7
rebellions and a bombing campaign. This resulted in the passage of
two amnesty laws that further undermined accountability efforts
until at least 2003.
C
In 2005, Argentina began an investigation into the Trelew
Massacre and—for the first time—offered witness protection to the
victims’ families. The plaintiffs participated extensively in the in-
vestigation and the eventual criminal prosecution. For example,
Ms. Camps filed a complaint asking the government to prosecute
the individuals who had taken part in the massacre. A criminal case
against Mr. Bravo, Luis Emilio Sosa, Carlos Amadeo Marandino,
Emilio Jorge Del Real, Jorge Enrique Bautista, and Norberto Pac-
cagnini formally began in 2005.
On February 1, 2008, a federal judge in Argentina issued an
arrest warrant for Mr. Bravo. The Argentine government was,
however, unable to locate Mr. Bravo without the assistance of In-
terpol, which determined in early March of 2008 that he was in
Florida. Because Argentine law prohibits criminal trials in absentia,
the other defendants were tried but the case against Mr. Bravo was
paused pending his extradition to Argentina.
Argentina first filed a request to extradite Mr. Bravo—who
had become a United States citizen in 1987—in the Southern Dis-
trict of Florida in March of 2010. The United States moved for an
order certifying the extradition of Mr. Bravo, but a magistrate
USCA11 Case: 23-12511 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2025 Page: 8 of 28
8 Opinion of the Court 23-12511
judge denied that motion in November of 2010. See In re Bravo, No.
1:10-mc-20559-RLD (S.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2010). 2
On October 15, 2012, an Argentine criminal court convicted
Mr. Sosa and Mr. Del Real—Mr. Bravo’s alleged co-perpetrators—
of homicide committed with malice for the killing of the sixteen
prisoners and the attempted homicide of those who survived. They
each received life sentences for their roles in the Trelew Massacre.
Eight years later—on October 20, 2020—the plaintiffs filed
suit against Mr. Bravo, bringing claims under the TVPA for the tor-
ture of their family members, for the extrajudicial killing of Mr.
Bonet, Ms. Villareal de Santucho, and Mr. Cappello, and the at-
tempted extrajudicial killing of Mr. Camps. Mr. Bravo answered
the complaint, raising three affirmative defenses: that the shootings
were acts of self-defense; that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust local
remedies; and that the claims were barred by the statute of limita-
tions.
Prior to trial, the plaintiffs filed a motion in limine asking the
district court to “preclude references to communism and Cuba.” In
particular, the plaintiffs sought to exclude any argument or intro-
duction of evidence that the victims of the Trelew Massacre were
communists and that the six escapees from Rawson Prison who did
2 In 2019, Argentina filed a second request for the extradition of Mr. Bravo,
and the United States again moved for an order certifying his extradition. A
magistrate judge denied this second extradition request due to the “political
offense” exception in the treaty between Argentina and the United States. See
In re Bravo, No. 19-23851-mc-Torres, 2023 WL 6462456 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 3, 2023).
USCA11 Case: 23-12511 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2025 Page: 9 of 28
23-12511 Opinion of the Court 9
not surrender made it to Chile and were then given safe passage to
Cuba. The district court ruled that this evidence was inadmissible
under Rule 401, as the prisoners’ “purported political views and ties
to Cuba” were irrelevant to Mr. Bravo’s argument that he acted in
self-defense. The district court was also “convinced” that Mr. Bravo
sought to improperly use this evidence to prove the decedents’
“propensity for violence.” Evidence that the victims “acted vio-
lently because they were violent” was “clearly inadmissible charac-
ter evidence” under Rule 404, the district court ruled.
The jury trial lasted five days. On day two of the trial, Mr.
Bravo moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that equita-
ble tolling was unavailable to the plaintiffs and that, in any event,
the district court—not the jury—should decide that question. The
district court denied the motion in open court, concluding that the
issue of equitable tolling should be submitted to the jury. The jury
ultimately found that the plaintiffs had proven that extraordinary
circumstances tolled the ten-year statute of limitations, and that
Mr. Bravo was liable for the torture and killings of their family
members. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and
awarded them $24,250,000 in damages.
Mr. Bravo then renewed his motion for judgment as a mat-
ter of law, alternatively asking the district court to amend the judg-
ment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The district court held a hearing on
the motion and issued an order granting it in part. The district court
reconsidered its earlier equitable tolling ruling, concluding that “it
USCA11 Case: 23-12511 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2025 Page: 10 of 28
10 Opinion of the Court 23-12511
was clear error to submit to the jury the question of whether ex-
traordinary circumstances existed to toll the statute of limitations.”
The district court then separately issued findings of fact and
conclusions of law on equitable tolling. Acknowledging that it was
“an exceptionally close question,” the district court concluded that
extraordinary circumstances tolled the statute of limitations “until
the conclusion of the [Argentine] criminal prosecution . . . in Octo-
ber 2012.” Specifically, the plaintiffs’ “fear of reprisal,” inability to
locate Mr. Bravo, and “inability to discover evidence in support of
their claims” constituted extraordinary circumstances that pre-
vented the plaintiffs from timely filing their TVPA claims.
Fear of reprisal prevented the plaintiffs from bringing their
claims until 2005, “when efforts to hold the military accountable
restarted.” The plaintiffs’ inability to locate Mr. Bravo, in conjunc-
tion with their fear of reprisal, equitably tolled the statute of limi-
tations until March 3, 2008. The district court also found that the
plaintiffs were unable to discover “crucial evidence” in support of
their claims until the conclusion of the criminal prosecution in Ar-
gentina. The combination of those three factors, the district court
concluded, equitably tolled the statute of limitations until October
15, 2012. Because it found that the plaintiffs’ inability to discover
crucial evidence tolled the limitations period such that the TVPA
claims were timely, the district court did not reach the plaintiffs’
argument that their reliance on a domestic truth and accountability
proceeding (i.e., the criminal prosecution) tolled the statute of
USCA11 Case: 23-12511 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2025 Page: 11 of 28
23-12511 Opinion of the Court 11
limitations until the denial of the Argentine government’s first re-
quest to extradite Mr. Bravo on November 1, 2010.
The district court next considered whether the plaintiffs had
acted with due diligence in filing their claims. The district court
thought it was important to “consider the conduct of the individual
[p]laintiffs in the case”—not the actions taken by their family mem-
bers on behalf of their relatives’ estates. By this metric, Ms. Camps,
Ms. Krueger, and Ms. Santucho had all diligently pursued their
claims by seeking “at least some civil remedies in Argentina” in the
form of compensation and reparations, as well as by participating
in the criminal prosecution of the perpetrators of the Trelew Mas-
sacre. In contrast, Mr. Cappello was not a direct participant in the
criminal proceeding and did not begin to pursue his claims until
2016, when he “took the place of his grandmother upon her death
in the efforts to facilitate” Mr. Bravo’s extradition. Mr. Cappello’s
grandmother had—like the other plaintiffs—received compensa-
tion from the Argentine government, but the district court found
that it was not clear what Mr. Cappello’s efforts, “as opposed to
those of his grandmother, were.” As a result, the district court con-
cluded that only Ms. Camps, Ms. Krueger, and Ms. Santucho were
entitled to equitable tolling. The district court then entered an
amended judgment which dismissed Mr. Cappello’s claim.
Mr. Bravo appealed, and Mr. Cappello filed a cross-appeal
soon thereafter.
USCA11 Case: 23-12511 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2025 Page: 12 of 28
12 Opinion of the Court 23-12511
II
The district court’s ultimate decision to equitably toll the
TVPA’s statute of limitations is subject to plenary review, but un-
derlying factual findings are reviewed for clear error. See Cabello v.
Fernandez-Larios, 402 F.3d 1148, 1153 (11th Cir. 2005). When a dis-
trict court fails to make sufficient findings “to permit meaningful
appellate review,” we can remand for additional findings. See
Thompson v. RelationServe Media, Inc., 610 F.3d 628, 637–38 (11th
Cir. 2010).
We review “‘the district court’s ruling on admission of evi-
dence for abuse of discretion.’” United States v. McGregor, 960 F.3d
1319, 1323 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v. Jimenez, 224
F.3d 1243, 1249 (11th Cir. 2000)). This standard gives the district
court a “range of choice,” and we will not reverse “unless the ruling
is manifestly erroneous.” United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244,
1258–59 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (quotation marks and citations
omitted).
III
Congress enacted the TVPA in 1992 “to carry out obliga-
tions of the United States under the United Nations Charter and
other international agreements pertaining to the protection of hu-
man rights . . .” Pub. L. No. 102–256, 106 Stat. 73 (1992). The TVPA
provides a cause of action in United States courts for torture and
extrajudicial killings committed “under actual or apparent author-
ity, or under color of law, of any foreign nation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1350
note. It is designed to ensure that “the most egregious cases of
USCA11 Case: 23-12511 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2025 Page: 13 of 28
23-12511 Opinion of the Court 13
human rights violations” do not “go unheard.” Arce v. Garcia, 434
F.3d 1254, 1261–62 (11th Cir. 2006).
A
Claims brought under the TVPA are subject to a ten-year
statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 1350, historical and statutory
notes § 2(c) (“No action shall be maintained under this section un-
less it is commenced within 10 years after the cause of action
arose.”); Arce, 434 F.3d at 1264 (stating that the TVPA has a ten-
year statute of limitations). The plaintiffs therefore had to bring
their claims—at the latest—by March of 2002, ten years after the
enactment of the TVPA.
Our precedent, however, establishes that the TVPA’s statute
of limitations may be equitably tolled. See Cabello, 402 F.3d at 1154.
“The doctrine of equitable tolling allows a court to toll the statute
of limitations until such a time that the court determines would
have been fair for the [limitations period] to begin running on the
plaintiff’s claims.” Arce, 434 F.3d at 1261.
Equitable tolling is appropriate when a plaintiff demon-
strates that his filing is untimely “because of extraordinary circum-
stances that are both beyond his control and unavoidable even with
diligence.” Id. (quoting Sandvik v. United States, 177 F.3d 1269, 1271
(11th Cir. 1999)). This is a “fact-specific determination because a
finding of extraordinary circumstances necessary for equitable toll-
ing is reserved for extraordinary facts.” Cabello, 402 F.3d at 1154–55
(brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).
USCA11 Case: 23-12511 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2025 Page: 14 of 28
14 Opinion of the Court 23-12511
The TVPA “explicitly calls for consideration of all equitable
tolling principles . . . with a view toward giving justice to plaintiff’s
rights.” S. Rep. No. 102–249, at 10–11 (1991). A Senate report on
the TVPA listed the following as “[i]llustrative, but not exhaustive,
of the types of tolling principles which may be applicable”:
The statute of limitations should be tolled during the
time the defendant was absent from the United States
or from any jurisdiction in which the same or similar
action arising from the same facts may be maintained
by the plaintiff, provided that the remedy in that ju-
risdiction is adequate and available. Excluded also
from calculation of the statute of limitations would
be the period when a defendant has immunity from
suit. The statute of limitations should also be tolled
for the period of time in which the plaintiff is impris-
oned or otherwise incapacitated. It should also be
tolled where the defendant has concealed his or her
whereabouts or the plaintiff has been unable to dis-
cover the identity of the offender.
Id. at 11. See Jean v. Dorelien, 431 F.3d 776, 779–80 (11th Cir. 2005)
(considering this Senate report in analyzing equitable tolling under
the TVPA).
In a number of cases we have held that the TVPA’s ten-year
statute of limitations should be tolled when the plaintiff has no rea-
sonable way of discovering the wrong perpetrated against him, Ca-
bello, 402 F.3d at 1155; until the defendant enters the United States
and personal jurisdiction can be obtained over him, Jean, 431 F.3d
USCA11 Case: 23-12511 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2025 Page: 15 of 28
23-12511 Opinion of the Court 15
at 779–80; and while the regime that perpetrated the abuses re-
mains in power, Arce, 434 F.3d at 1262–63.
The district court concluded that extraordinary circum-
stances tolled the statute of limitations until October 15, 2012.
Again, three factors supported its conclusion: (1) the plaintiffs’ fear
of reprisal; (2) the plaintiffs’ inability to identify and locate Mr.
Bravo; and (3) the plaintiffs’ inability to discover crucial evidence
until the conclusion of the criminal prosecution against the other
perpetrators of the Trelew Massacre. According to the district
court, the first factor supported tolling until 2005, when a demo-
cratic government was in power and “efforts to hold the military
accountable” began. The second factor supported tolling until
March 3, 2008, when Interpol informed Argentina of Mr. Bravo’s
location. And the third factor supported tolling until October 15,
2012.
B
The parties do not dispute that the plaintiffs were entitled to
equitable tolling until March 3, 2008. Applying federal common
law because the TVPA is a federal statute, see Branch v. G. Bernd Co.,
955 F.2d 1574, 1580 (11th Cir. 1992), we concur in their assessment.
The plaintiffs presented ample evidence of their fear of re-
prisal through at least 2005. For example, Professor James Brennan,
the plaintiffs’ expert on Argentine history testified that Argentina
experienced significant state-directed violence during the 1970s and
1980s. The military regime operated “death squads” that targeted
opponents of the regime known as “subversives.” Anyone seeking
USCA11 Case: 23-12511 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2025 Page: 16 of 28
16 Opinion of the Court 23-12511
justice on behalf of a family member who had suffered human
rights abuses would have been labeled a “subversive” and targeted.
In addition, the plaintiffs testified to their own experiences
with reprisals and violence. After the lawyer who sought justice for
her husband was murdered by the military regime in 1974, Ms.
Krueger and her family went into hiding, changed their last name,
and fled as political refugees to France. Mr. Cappello’s grandpar-
ents also attempted to file a lawsuit related to their son’s death.
That resulted in the regime “disappearing” Mr. Cappello’s mother,
father, brother, and the lawyers representing his grandparents.
When Ms. Santucho’s aunt tried to file a lawsuit, she too was “dis-
appeared.” And Ms. Santucho herself was kidnapped and detained
for a week by the military when she was just a child. She later fled
the country and did not return until 2008. Though Ms. Camps’ fa-
ther initially survived the Trelew Massacre, he was eventually
killed by the government in 1977, and her mother was “disap-
peared.”
In sum, all of the families, and their lawyers, were targeted
and persecuted for their attempts to seek justice. Even with a dem-
ocratic government in place, the military remained influential and
protected by amnesty laws until 2003. We thus conclude that the
district court correctly tolled the statute of limitations until 2005.
See Arce, 402 F.3d at 1262–63.
It also seems reasonable to us that if Argentina was unable
to locate Mr. Bravo until receiving information from Interpol, the
plaintiffs could not find him before then either. So equitable tolling
USCA11 Case: 23-12511 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2025 Page: 17 of 28
23-12511 Opinion of the Court 17
was appropriate through March of 2008, when Mr. Bravo was lo-
cated by Interpol. See Jean, 431 F.3d at 779–80.
C
The plaintiffs filed suit on October 20, 2020. The critical
question is whether the plaintiffs were entitled to equitable tolling
beyond March of 2008 and through at least October of 2010.
It is the third factor that the district court relied on—the
plaintiffs’ “inability to discover evidence in support of their
claims”—that gives us pause. The district court concluded, based
on this factor, that the TVPA limitations period should be equitably
tolled until October 15, 2012, when the criminal prosecution of Mr.
Bravo’s co-perpetrators in Argentina concluded. In the district
court’s view, “[a] quantum of discoverable evidence sufficient to
support criminal convictions in Argentina was by that time discov-
erable and available to [the plaintiffs].” On this record, we have
some concerns about this third factor.
1
First, this factor—as the district court has formulated and ap-
plied it—may be in tension with our equitable tolling precedent.
Our TVPA cases suggest that equitable tolling applies until the
plaintiff “can investigate and compile evidence without fear of re-
prisals.” Jean, 431 F.3d at 780. See also Cabello, 402 F.3d at 1155 (eq-
uitably tolling the statute of limitations while “the Chilean political
climate prevented the Cabello family from pursuing any efforts to
learn of the incidents surrounding Cabello’s murder”); Warfaa v.
Ali, 1 F.4th 289, 295 (4th Cir. 2021) (“[P]ermitting tolling until
USCA11 Case: 23-12511 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2025 Page: 18 of 28
18 Opinion of the Court 23-12511
claimants have the ability to both compile evidence supporting
their claims and pursue claims without fear of reprisal falls within
the purpose of equitable tolling specifically and the TVPA more
generally.”). And in another case involving a federal claim we spe-
cifically rejected the “suggestion” that equitable tolling is appropri-
ate until the plaintiffs “have all of the information necessary to pre-
vail on their . . . claims.” Ross v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp., 980 F.2d 648,
660 n.19 (11th Cir. 1993) (Title VII disparate impact case). Instead,
the “inquiry into whether equitable concerns justify tolling the lim-
itations period focuses on whether [the plaintiffs] knew or reason-
ably should have known [about the defendant’s unlawful conduct],
not on whether [the plaintiffs] had enough evidence to prosecute
successfully their . . . claims at trial.” Id.
It’s true that we have held that equitable tolling is appropri-
ate in a TVPA case where “the plaintiff has no reasonable way of
discovering the wrong perpetrated against her.” Cabello, 402 F.3d
at 1154–55. In Cabello, for example, the plaintiffs were aware by
1973 that their relative had been killed and that unknown military
officers were involved. See id. at 1155. Yet, because of the Chilean
government’s “deliberate concealment” of both the manner of the
relative’s death and his burial place, the plaintiffs did not know that
he had been tortured and murdered until 1990, when a civilian
president was elected and his unmarked grave was located. See id.
The plaintiffs’ inability to discover this evidence resulted from both
a fear of reprisal while the military regime remained in power and
a deliberate cover-up of the torture and murder of their relative.
And the evidence they discovered went to the very heart of their
USCA11 Case: 23-12511 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2025 Page: 19 of 28
23-12511 Opinion of the Court 19
claim: They did not know before then that there had been torture
and an extrajudicial killing.
That is not the scenario we are faced with here. By 2008, the
democratic Argentine government had begun investigating the
Trelew Massacre and prosecuting its perpetrators. The plaintiffs
may no longer have been unable to investigate and find out what
happened to their family members. The government was certainly
no longer engaging in “deliberate concealment.” And given the
survival and post-massacre statement of Mr. Camps, the plaintiffs
may have known that their family members had been massacred at
the Almirante Zar Naval Base in the 1970s. Indeed, several of them
brought suit in Argentina around that time.
2
Second, the district court’s reasoning and factual findings do
not provide sufficient support for tolling the statute of limitations
until October 15, 2012. Maybe there was some crucial evidence
that was missing and did not allow the plaintiffs to sue before Oc-
tober of 2020. But the district court’s order is devoid of factual sup-
port for a finding that the end of the criminal trial in Argentina is
the point from which the statute of limitations should begin to run.
See, e.g., Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC v. Simmonds, 566 U.S. 221, 227
(2012) (“Allowing [equitable] tolling to continue beyond the point
at which a . . . plaintiff is aware, or should have been aware, of the
facts underlying the claim would quite certainly be inequitable and
inconsistent with the general purpose of statutes of limitations[.]”)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Again, the
USCA11 Case: 23-12511 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2025 Page: 20 of 28
20 Opinion of the Court 23-12511
limitations period is not equitably tolled until the plaintiffs have
sufficient evidence to prevail at trial. See Ross, 980 F.2d at 660 n. 19.
The Argentine government began a criminal investigation
into the massacre in 2005 and the suspected perpetrators were for-
mally accused in March of 2006. The district court stated that the
evidence available to the plaintiffs “prior to the criminal prosecu-
tion was relatively limited,” D.E. 180 at 22 (emphasis added), but
this statement illustrates the problem. It may be that the available
evidence was limited before the prosecution began, but it is also possi-
ble that the plaintiffs had access to evidence as it was presented and
disclosed during the criminal proceeding, particularly given their
extensive involvement in the investigation and prosecution. We
just do not know.
Also potentially important is that the Argentine government
filed an extradition request in the Southern District of Florida for
Mr. Bravo in March of 2010. See In re Bravo, Case No. 1:10-mc-
20559-RLD (S.D. Fla. 2010). At least some of the evidence against
Mr. Bravo—unearthed during the investigation—was presumably
filed on the public docket as of that date. So it is possible that the
plaintiffs had sufficient evidence to bring their TVPA claims at that
point. The district court failed to address this possibility, and did
not make any findings explaining why the end of the criminal pros-
ecution in Argentina was the critical date for the running of the
statute of limitations.
Most of the evidence that the district court considered to be
critical became available “through the criminal prosecution in
USCA11 Case: 23-12511 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2025 Page: 21 of 28
23-12511 Opinion of the Court 21
Argentina and only after 2008.” D.E. 180 at 22 (emphasis added). For
example, the district court cited the forensic reconstruction of the
crime scene at the Almirante Zar Naval Base as an example of “cru-
cial evidence” that supposedly only became available at the conclu-
sion of the prosecution. But, as far as we can tell, this piece of evi-
dence seems to have been presented to the Argentine criminal
court around 2008. Indeed, elsewhere in its order the district court
stated that this “crucial evidence in support of [the plaintiffs’]
claims became discoverable after 2008 in connection with the crim-
inal prosecution.” Id. at 24. So, even if the reconstruction evidence
was critical—such that the plaintiffs couldn’t bring their TVPA
claims without it—we lack the facts to determine whether they
were unaware of it or unable to access it before 2012.
The district court also noted that the 1972 Report of the
General Auditor, which described the massacre as self-defense, was
also “not made available until the Argentine criminal prosecution.”
According to the district court, this was sometime “around 2006,”
and there was “no evidence” that the plaintiffs could have accessed
it before then. We accept that finding, but there is no evidence—at
least none that we can find—that the plaintiffs were unable to ac-
cess the report until October of 2012.
We vacate the district court’s judgment and remand for ad-
ditional fact-finding and consideration of equitable tolling con-
sistent with our discussion. If upon further consideration, the dis-
trict court determines that the third factor does not support equi-
tably tolling the statute of limitations until at least October of 2010
USCA11 Case: 23-12511 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2025 Page: 22 of 28
22 Opinion of the Court 23-12511
or later, it should address the plaintiffs’ argument that the criminal
prosecution in this case is an analog for a domestic truth and ac-
countability proceeding. If meritorious, that argument might toll
the statute of limitations so as to render the plaintiffs’ claims timely.
We express no view on that matter.
IV
Mr. Cappello cross-appeals the district court’s determination
that he did not act diligently in bringing his TVPA claims. On re-
mand, the district court should take a fresh look at this issue if it
concludes that the plaintiffs are entitled to equitable tolling that
makes their TVPA claims timely.
In overturning the jury’s verdict in favor of Mr. Cappello,
the district court reasoned that it “must take care to consider the
conduct of the individual [p]laintiffs in this case” because “[m]uch
of the evidence and argument regarding [p]laintiffs’ diligence in this
case attributed the actions of [p]laintiffs’ families and other family
members to the current [p]laintiffs who have brought this case.”
D.E. 180 at 24. It then found that Mr. Cappello had not exercised
diligence because he only began pursuing his claims in 2016, when
his grandmother, Soledad Cappello—who had been seeking vari-
ous remedies on behalf of her son (Mr. Cappello’s uncle)—passed
away. See id. at 24–25. But that analysis ignores the fact that Mr.
Cappello brought claims in both his individual capacity and in his
capacity as the representative of his uncle’s estate.
Rule 9(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states
that a plaintiff need not specifically plead his “authority to sue . . .
USCA11 Case: 23-12511 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2025 Page: 23 of 28
23-12511 Opinion of the Court 23
in a representative capacity.” And Rule 9(a)(2) provides that to raise
an issue about authority to sue, “a party must do so by a specific
denial, which must state any supporting facts that are peculiarly
within the party’s knowledge.” Here Mr. Bravo withdrew any de-
nial or defense that Mr. Cappello could not properly sue in a repre-
sentative capacity on behalf of his uncle’s estate. See D.E. 43 at 4
(withdrawing affirmative defense that the “[p]laintiffs lack standing
or capacity under applicable law to bring these claims”). See also
D.E. 48 at 2; D.E. 148 at 83. So the capacity-to-sue issue was not
properly joined, and Mr. Cappello reasonably believed that he did
not need to present any affirmative evidence about his authority to
sue.
Moreover, at trial Mr. Bravo never made a Rule 50 motion
against Mr. Cappello on the ground that he lacked authority to sue
in a representative capacity. Indeed, Mr. Bravo never challenged
the authority of any of the plaintiffs to sue, whether in their indi-
vidual or representative capacities. The most that Mr. Bravo said at
trial was that he did not know if Mr. Cappello was an authorized
representative for his uncle’s estate. And Mr. Bravo’s renewed mo-
tion for judgment as a matter of law argued only that the punitive
damages the jury awarded to Mr. Cappello were excessive.
On this record, then, Mr. Cappello—like the other plain-
tiffs—was properly suing in a representative capacity. That should
have informed the district court’s diligence analysis.
For purposes of equitable tolling, an estate representative’s
diligence should be evaluated by reference to the conduct of the
USCA11 Case: 23-12511 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2025 Page: 24 of 28
24 Opinion of the Court 23-12511
individuals who preceded him in that role. “Generally speaking, the
powers granted to the original personal representative of an estate
flow to a successor personal representative.” 31 Am. Jur. 2d Execu-
tors and Administrators § 882 (May 2025 update). See also id. at § 885
(“A successor representative is . . . bound by the latter’s lawful acts
performed within the scope of the predecessor’s duties.”). Accord
Bookman v. Davidson, 136 So.3d 1276, 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
(holding that under Florida law “the powers granted to the original
personal representative flow to the successor personal representa-
tive”). The diligence inquiry for purposes of equitable tolling there-
fore must focus on the actions of all those who previously repre-
sented the estate of the deceased Eduardo Cappello, who is Mr.
Cappello’s uncle. See id. at § 882 (explaining that the “successor is
required to proceed as if the successor’s administration is a contin-
uation of the former one and may sue to recover estate assets”);
Uniform Probate Code § 3-716 (1969 & 2025 update) (“A successor
personal representative has the same power and duty as the origi-
nal personal representative to complete the administration and dis-
tribution of the estate[.]”); Cunningham v. Fla. Dept. of Children and
Families, 782 So.2d 913, 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (agreeing that “no-
tice of [a wrongful death claim] given by the original personal rep-
resentative should be imputed to [the successor] personal repre-
sentative under the doctrines of relation back and substitution of
parties”). Cf. Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 85(2) (Am. L. Inst.
2007) (“Except as otherwise provided by the terms of the trust, the
USCA11 Case: 23-12511 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2025 Page: 25 of 28
23-12511 Opinion of the Court 25
powers of a trustee . . . pass to and are exercisable by substitute or
successor trustees”).
According to Mr. Cappello, the district court should have
credited his uncle’s estate with his grandmother’s diligence in pur-
suing a remedy for the massacre. Mr. Bravo responds that there is
no evidence in the record that Mr. Cappello’s grandmother was a
personal representative of the estate, or that she did anything for
the estate, and Mr. Cappello therefore could not have stepped into
her shoes. But there was some evidence at trial that Mr. Cappello
had taken over his grandmother’s efforts to get justice for his uncle.
Mr. Cappello testified that when his grandmother, Ms. Cappello,
passed away in 2016, he “took her place” in trying to “achieve [Mr.]
Bravo’s extradition to Argentina.” D.E. 140 at 80. Ms. Cappello, the
mother of the deceased Mr. Cappello, participated in the Argentine
criminal prosecution and in efforts to extradite Mr. Bravo. Moreo-
ver, Ms. Cappello also sought and received compensation from the
Argentine government as the beneficiary of the deceased Mr. Cap-
pello’s estate.
We express no view on whether Mr. Cappello’s grand-
mother was indeed the previous estate representative or whether
she acted with diligence in that capacity. But the district court must
at least analyze these issues, and consider whether Mr. Cappello
gets the benefit of her diligence for purposes of equitable tolling.
We therefore vacate the judgment setting aside the jury
award in favor of Mr. Cappello and remand to the district court for
USCA11 Case: 23-12511 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2025 Page: 26 of 28
26 Opinion of the Court 23-12511
further consideration of whether he acted diligently in pursuing his
claims in a representative capacity on behalf of his uncle’s estate.
V
Finally, Mr. Bravo challenges the district court’s exclusion
under Rule 404(a)(1) of evidence that the victims of the Trelew
Massacre had “ties to communism and Cuba.” The plaintiffs ar-
gued below, and the district court agreed, that Mr. Bravo should
not be allowed to “inflame the jury, invoke anti-communist senti-
ment, and improperly suggest that [his] victims were more likely
to act violently because of their purported political views.” On ap-
peal, Mr. Bravo argues that the district court erred because this ev-
idence demonstrated that the victims had a “propensity for vio-
lence” that led him to fear for his life.
“Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence prohibits intro-
ducing ‘[e]vidence of a person’s character or character trait . . . to
prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance
with the character or trait.’” United States v. Ahmed, 73 F.4th 1363,
1384 (11th Cir. 2023) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)(1)). “An analysis
of the admissibility of character evidence necessarily begins, then,
with an examination of the purposes for which the evidence is prof-
fered.” Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 589 F.2d 791, 794 (5th Cir. 1979).
In excluding the evidence under Rule 404(a)(1), the district
court reasoned that Mr. Bravo sought to use the victims’ purported
communist ties and political beliefs as impermissible propensity ev-
idence. He was trying, the district court said, to use the victims’
alleged affiliation with communist groups to prove that they had
USCA11 Case: 23-12511 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2025 Page: 27 of 28
23-12511 Opinion of the Court 27
acted violently on the night of the massacre, and that he had acted
in self-defense as a result.
Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see McGregor, 960 F.3d at
1323, we do not discern any error. Mr. Bravo’s own argument con-
firms that the victims’ alleged beliefs were going to be used to show
their propensity for violence. And his challenge appears to be based
on a misapprehension of both the record and the district court’s
ruling.
The district court, he says, “improperly conflated the issues
of communist affiliation with propensity for violence.” Appellant’s
Br. at 54. Not so. Rather, Mr. Bravo conflates evidence that the vic-
tims had, a week prior, escaped from another prison and killed a
guard in the process, with evidence of their alleged communist
views. He incorrectly suggests that the district court’s ruling pre-
cluded the jury from hearing about the escape. But the jury heard
evidence about the riot and the escape, including testimony that a
guard was killed. The jury also heard that the victims were “fanat-
ically dangerous.” The district court only excluded evidence of the
victims’ “purported political views and ties to Cuba.” D.E. 90 at 11.
3
We cannot say the district court abused its discretion in con-
cluding that introducing evidence to prove that the Trelew
3 On appeal, Mr. Bravo now argues that this evidence was admissible under
Rule 404(b)(2). But because the jury heard evidence of the victims’ extrinsic
acts—escaping and shooting a prison guard—without the victims being la-
beled as “communists,” this argument also fails.
USCA11 Case: 23-12511 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2025 Page: 28 of 28
28 Opinion of the Court 23-12511
prisoners “acted violently because they were violent” constitutes
impermissible character evidence.
VI
The district court’s judgment is vacated and the case is re-
manded for proceedings consistent with our opinion. After the dis-
trict court makes additional findings on the period of equitable toll-
ing, it can decide whether it needs to revisit the matter of the plain-
tiffs’ diligence and make further findings on that issue.
VACATED AND REMANDED.