Pernod Ricard Files Motion To Dismiss Libertad Act Lawsuit: "Plaintiffs Failed To... Plausibly State A Claim"

MARLENE CUETO IGLESIAS AND MARIAM IGLESIAS ALVAREZ V. PERNOD RICARD [1:20-cv-20157; Southern Florida District]

Law Offices of Andre G. Raikhelson LLC (plaintiff)
Ainsworth & Clancy PLLC (plaintiff)
Carlton Fields P.A. (defendant)

Excerpts From Defendant Motion To Dismiss:

“The Complaint should be dismissed under any of four separate and independent provisions of Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. First, the Court lacks general and specific personal jurisdiction over PRSA, a French company headquartered in Paris. PRSA does not do business in Florida, is not licensed in Florida, and does not have an office or physical presence in Florida; therefore, the Court accordingly lacks general personal jurisdiction over PRSA. Further, PRSA’s declarant also explains that PRSA does not manufacture cognac in Cuba, and it does not distribute Havana Club branded rums in Florida or anywhere in the United States, since Cubanorigin spirits cannot be sold in the U.S. pursuant to U.S. embargo regulations. Plaintiffs cannot, consequently, establish specific personal jurisdiction over PRSA.While Plaintiffs seek to establish personal jurisdiction over PRSA on agency or alter-ego theories, none of the required legal elements of an agency relationship or alter-ego finding are alleged.

Second, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiffs lack standing. Plaintiffs’ claim that the Cuban government expropriated Conac Cueto’s property in Cuba, folded Conac Cueto’s described assets into a new company and rebranded its offerings “Havana Club,” fails to allege an injury, or even the exacerbation of an injury, that is fairly traceable to PRSA.

Third, Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently or plausibly state a claim under Title III. The Act requires that a plaintiff make plausible allegations that the defendant “knowingly and intentionally” trafficked in the specific property at issue; here, assets that once allegedly belonged to Conac Cueto. There are no plausible allegations that, if credited, establish that the rum products PRSA began distributing in 1993 from Cuba to countries other than the U.S. (in light of the Cuban embargo) are produced from assets seized from Conac Cueto in 1963, or that, if they are, PRSA had any knowledge of such connection.

Fourth, Plaintiffs failed to properly serve PRSA in accordance with the Hague Convention and French law for service of process. The notice of service was not addressed, directed to, or 7 served on a person authorized to accept service of process in accordance with French law.

For all of these reasons, the Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6).”

LINK To Defendant Pernod Ricard S.A.’S Motion To Dismiss The First Amended Complaint Under Fed.R.CIV.P.12(B)(1), 12(B)(2), 12(B)(5) And 12(B)(6), And Memorandum Of Law In Support

LINK To Case Filings

LINK To Post: https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2020/4/15/pernod-ricard-of-france-sued-by-former-property-owners-using-libertad-act

NOTE: The United States is the largest market for Pernod Ricard brands, representing 18% of global sales. Pernod Ricard has offices in New York City and Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Havana Club rum is a brand distributed by Pernod Ricard outside of the United States.