Judge Reverses Motion To Dismiss With Prejudice In Libertad Act Lawsuit Against Norwegian Cruise Line

Excerpts….

“Following an extensive review of the arguments presented in the parties’ briefs and in the arguments addressed at the hearing, the issues raised in each of Havana Docks’ cases under Title III, and the limited relevant caselaw concerning the LIBERTAD Act, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that reconsideration of its NCL Order is warranted to correct errors of fact and law that, when compounded, led the Court to incorrectly dismiss the instant action with prejudice.”

“C. Leave to Amend

Based on the errors in the Court’s NCL Order, the Court concludes that good cause exists to vacate its NCL Order, reopen this case, and permit Havana Docks to file its Amended Complaint.

Allowing Plaintiff to file the Amended Complaint is warranted because Havana Docks reasonably relied on the Court’s holding in its Carnival Order in gauging the sufficiency of the allegations plead in the instant action.15 Additionally, the errors of fact and law in the Court’s NCL Order also support permitting Havana Docks to file its Amended Complaint.

Moreover, the Court disagrees with NCL regarding the futility of permitting Plaintiff to file its Amended Complaint. Instead, the Court finds that Havana Docks can sufficiently allege a claim under Title III, in light of the Court’s discussion above with regard to the express language and purpose of the Act and the additional allegations in the Amended Complaint regarding Havana Docks’ various property interests. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint would also not fail as a matter of law because, contrary to the Court’s previous conclusion in its NCL Order, the liability provision of Title III does not contain any temporal limitation. Likewise, the Court finds the allegations in the Amended Complaint to be sufficient to assert a claim under Title III because Plaintiff has adequately alleged that it owned a Certified Claim to an interest in the Subject Property that was wrongfully confiscated and that NCL knowingly trafficked in the confiscated Subject Property.

Thus, the Court concludes that allowing Havana Docks to file its Amended Complaint would not be futile in this case. See Bryant, 252 F.3d at 1164 (concluding that the district court’s finding of futility “ignore[d] the fact that the district court earlier had found the complaint sufficient, thus justifying, until [the Eleventh Circuit’s] opinion, the plaintiffs’ belief that they did not need to include any further allegations in the Amended Complaint”). Finally, given the significant factual and legal errors contained within the NCL Order, the Court believes it necessary to vacate its NCL Order in its entirety.

IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No. [44], is GRANTED.
2. The Court’s Order on Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [42], is VACATED.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to REOPEN the above-styled case. The Court will enter a separate order resetting all trial and pre-trial deadlines.
4. Plaintiff must separately refile its Amended Complaint, ECF No. [44-1], by no later than April 21, 2020.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida on April 14, 2020.”

LINK To Court Decision