[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-11520 ____________________

NOBLE PRESTIGE LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CRAIG THOMAS GALLE, individually, PAUL HORN, individually, GALLE LAW GROUP, P.A., a Florida professional association,

Defendants-Appellants.

____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-11520 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 10/16/2023 Page: 2 of 34

2 Opinion of the Court 22-11520

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 9:20-cv-82357-RS ____________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, LUCK *, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. MARCUS, Circuit Judge: Noble Prestige Limited lent Paul Thomas Horn $500,000 to pursue litigation against a telecommunications company. Under the terms of the loan, Horn agreed to repay Noble $5,000,000, or 5% of the recovery from the litigation, whichever turned out to be greater. While the litigation was pending, however, a conserva- torship over Horn’s assets was commenced in a probate court in Denver, Colorado (the “Denver Probate Court”), due to a longstanding mental illness that interferes with Horn’s ability to make his own decisions or convey his wishes to others. Horn’s longtime counsel, Craig Thomas Galle, was appointed conservator and authorized to resolve the litigation on Horn’s behalf. The case settled, and the proceeds were placed in the conservatorship estate, subject to Galle’s management and the ultimate custody and con- trol of the Denver Probate Court. Following settlement, the Denver Probate Court refused to authorize the payment of $5,000,000 to Noble because of concerns

* Judge Luck concurs in all but Section III.A. USCA11 Case: 22-11520 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 10/16/2023 Page: 3 of 34

22-11520 Opinion of the Court 3

it had about the enforceability of the loan agreement. So, Noble decided to arbitrate its dispute with Horn in Hong Kong, ulti- mately obtaining arbitral awards that required Horn to pay Noble the debt owed under the loan agreement and Galle to pay Noble costs associated with the arbitration. With its international arbitral awards in hand, Noble moved to confirm the awards under the New York Convention in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Noble also sought a temporary restraining order prohibiting Galle, Horn, and Galle’s law firm, Galle Law Group (“GLG”), from trans- ferring, using, dissipating, or otherwise encumbering funds up to the amount owed to Noble under the arbitral awards. Galle and GLG (together, “Respondents”) opposed Noble’s request and moved to dismiss the action. The district court granted Noble’s request, entering what it termed a “temporary restraining order” that prohibited Galle from dissipating or transferring $10,000,000 “notwithstanding any order(s) entered by the [Denver] Probate Court.” The district court also entered an order granting Respond- ents’ motion to dismiss in part and denying it in part. Now