Plaintiff In Libertad Act Lawsuits Against Cruise Lines Now 4 For 4 In Dismissal Rulings Reversals By One Judge

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION VS. CARNIVAL CORPORATION D/B/A/ CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES [1:19-cv-21724; Southern Florida District]

Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Jones Walker (defendant)
Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (defendant)
Akerman (defendant)

LINK To Omnibus Order (4/20/20)
LINK To Amended Complaint (4/20/20)
LINK To Exhibit “A” (4/20/20)
LINK To Exhibit “B” (4/20/20)

Excerpts From Omnibus Order:

“Since the time that the parties briefed the two pending motions, after an extensive review of the issues raised in Plaintiff’s cases under Title III, the scope of the Certified Claim, and the nature of Plaintiff’s property interest in the Subject Property, the Court has reconsidered its interpretation of the Act in the Dismissal Orders and has concluded that the orders were premised on errors of fact and law. See NCL Case, ECF No. [53]; MSC Case, ECF No. [55]. Specifically, in the Related Cases, the Court has since concluded that its “ruling in the Carnival Order was consistent with the language and purpose of the Act,” the Court’s reasoning in the Dismissal Orders “incorrectly conflate[d] the Certified Claim with Havana Docks’ former interests in the Subject Property,” and that the Dismissal Orders’ holdings were “at odds with the Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning in Glen II and the district court’s reasoning in Glen I, which the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.” See NCL Case, ECF No. [53] at 17, 19; MSC Case, ECF No. [55] at 17, 19. Therefore, the Court has subsequently vacated the Dismissal Orders, reopened the Related Cases, and granted Plaintiff leave to amend its complaints. See NCL Case, ECF No. [53]; MSC Case, ECF No. [55]. Notably, the Court has rejected arguments that amendment is futile under Title III. See NCL Case, ECF No. [53] at 28; MSC Case, ECF No. [55] at 28. The Motion and the Motion for Reconsideration, accordingly, are ripe for consideration.”