Teck Resources Of Canada Libertad Act Lawsuit Update: Plaintiff Says Its Canadian Company And Court Has No Jurisdiction
/HEREDEROS DE ROBERTO GOMEZ CABRERA, LLC v. TECK RESOURCES LIMITED [1:20-cv-21630; Southern Florida District]
Hirzel Dreyfuss & Dempsey, PLLC (plaintiff)
Roig & Villarreal, P.A. (plaintiff)
Law Office of David A. Villarreal, P.A. (plaintiff)
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman (defendant)
Excerpts:
This is one of many claims recently brought in this District under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, 22 U.S.C. § 6021, et seq. (the “Helms-Burton Act” or “Act”). For at least four separate and independent reasons, the Amended Complaint should be dismissed.
First, this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant Teck, a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business in Canada. Teck has no jurisdictionally relevant contacts of any kind with the State of Florida, and the Amended Complaint fails to plead that it does.
Second, even if there were some cognizable basis to exercise jurisdiction over Teck, the Amended Complaint should still be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Amended Complaint alleges that Teck is liable for having “trafficked” in various mining properties in Cuba confiscated by the Cuban government, without compensation, in October 1960. However, according to the Amended Complaint, those mining properties were owned by a corporation named Minera Rogoca S.A. (“Minera Rogoca”). Am. Compl. ¶¶ 3, 8, 11. Putting to one side whether there can be any claim at all under U.S. law for the confiscation of real and personal property in Cuba by the Cuban government from a Cuban corporation, such claim would belong to Minera Rogoca, not HRGC or its alleged predecessors in interest.
Third, HRGC cannot possibly be a proper plaintiff here. It appears from the records of the Florida Secretary of State that “Herederos de Roberto Gomez Cabrera, LLC” is not even a validly formed entity under Florida, or any other, law.2 Even if it were, as this Court recently held in Gonzalez v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 19-23988-Civ-Scola, 2020 WL 1169125, at *1 (S.D. Fla. March 11, 2020), for property confiscated before March 12, 1996, only a U.S. national that acquired ownership of the claim before that date can pursue a claim under the Helms-Burton Act. No such allegation is, or could be, made here.
Fourth, HRGC’s alleged claim fails to meet the requirements of the statute and of international law. A claim under the Helms-Burton Act can only be asserted if the property was confiscated from a U.S. national, which is not, and is not alleged to be, the case here. On the other hand, if Mr. Gomez Cabrera had been a U.S. national at the time of the alleged confiscation, then he (or presumably his heirs) would have been eligible to file a claim with the United States Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, established under 22 U.S.C. §§ 1621, et seq. (the “FCSC”). No such claim was ever filed, either byMinera Rogoca or Mr. Gomez Cabrera, or by any U.S. national claiming ownership through either of them. The failure to make a claim before the FCSC by one eligible to do so forecloses a claim under the Helms-Burton Act, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. §6082(a)(5)(A). For these reasons, the Amended Complaint should be dismissed.
