Libertad Act Lawsuit Against MSC Cruises Is Dismissed By Judge "With Prejudice"

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION V. MSC CRUISES SA CO, AND MSC CRUISES (USA) INC. [1:19-cv-23588; Southern Florida District]

Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Venable (defendant)

Published on 6 January 2020, Judge Beth Bloom granted on 3 January 2020 to defendants a Motion To Dismiss; and Judge Bloom issued the Motion To Dismiss with Prejudice. The Motion To Dismiss may be appealed.

Likely defendants in the three other cases where Havana Docks Corporation, which is a certified claimant, is the plaintiff will file Motions To Dismiss using similar arguments as did Judge Bloom- Carnival Corporation, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, and Royal Caribbean Cruises. Whomever is unsuccessful would then be expected to appeal to the three-judge Atlanta, Georgia-based Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Excerpts From The Motion To Dismiss:

In their Motion, Defendants argue that the Complaint should be dismissed for four reasons: 1) Plaintiff fails to include sufficient allegations regarding Defendants’ alleged trafficking in Plaintiff’s property and impermissibly groups both Defendants together; 2) Plaintiff’s claim of trafficking fails as a matter of law; 3) Title III of the LIBERTAD Act violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; and 4) Title III’s remedy provision violates the Due Process Clause.

Even though there is no identified fee simple owner and it appears that the property reverted to the Cuban Government by the terms of the concession itself, Plaintiff’s claim involving a time-limited concession nevertheless does not give Plaintiff the right to sue for activities that took place years after it no longer has an interest in the property. A broader interpretation would in effect give Plaintiff additional rights from the bundle to which it is not otherwise entitled. This reading is further bolstered in the statute, where it specifies that “[a]n interest in property for which a United States national has a claim certified . . . may not be the subject of a claim in an action under this section by any other person.” 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(5)(D).

Thus, for example, if the interest at issue is a leasehold, following the plain language of the statute, a person would have to traffic in the leasehold in order for that person to be liable to the owner of the claim to the leasehold.

22 U.S.C. § 6081(6)(B), (8). However, there is nothing to suggest that Congress intended to grant victims of property confiscations more rights to the property than they would otherwise have simply by virtue of the confiscation.

LINK To Order On Motion To Dismiss