Judge Dismisses, But Provides Plaintiff An Option In Libertad Act Lawsuit Against Amazon/Fogo Charcoal
/DANIEL A. GONZALEZ VS. AMAZON.COM, INC., AND SUSSHI INTERNATIONAL, INC., D/B/A/ FOGO CHARCOAL [1:19-cv-23988; Southern Florida District]
Cueto Law Group, P.L. (plaintiff)
Wicker Smith O’Hara McCoy & Ford (defendant- Susshi International)
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius (defendant- Amazon)
Excerpts From The Judge:
“First, the Court agrees that Gonzalez did not sufficiently allege that he had an actionable ownership interest because he did not allege that a United States citizen owned the claim on March 12, 1996.”
“Second, the Court agrees that Gonzalez did not sufficiently allege that the Defendants knowingly and intentionally trafficked in the property.”
“Third, the Court does not agree that Susshi’s general license to sell charcoal requires the Court to dismiss the Complaint…. In his Complaint, Gonzalez need not refute every basis on which the Court could ultimately decide that the Defendants’ conduct was lawful. Instead, Susshi must establish that its conduct constituted lawful licensed activity and is thus exempt from liability under the Helms-Burton Act. Dismissal of the suit due to Susshi’s general license is inappropriate at this time.”
“In sum, the Court grants the Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 13, 14) without prejudice and with leave to amend. The Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by March 24, 2020, provided he complies with this order, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), and the Iqbal/Twombly standard.”
LINK To Order On Motions To Dismiss
LINK To Defendant Fogo's Reply To The Motion To Dismiss With Prejudice (10 January 2020)
