One Libertad Act Lawsuit Dismissed Against Trivago, Expedia, Orbitz, Hotels, Booking
/MARIO DEL VALLE, ENRIQUE FALLA, MARIO ECHEVARRIA V. EXPEDIA, INC., HOTELS.COM L.P., HOTELS.COM GP, ORBITZ, LLC, BOOKING.COM B.V., BOOKING HOLDINGS INC. Initial defendants were: TRIVAGO GMBH, BOOKING.COM B.V., GRUPO HOTELERO GRAN CARIBE, CORPORACION DE COMERCIO Y TURISMO INTERNACIONAL CUBANACAN S.A., GRUPO DE TURISMO GAVIOTA S.A., RAUL DOE I-5, AND MARIELA ROE 1-5, [1:19-cv-22619; Southern Florida District]
Rivero Mestre LLP (plaintiff)
Manuel Vazquez, P.A. (plaintiff)
Scott Douglass & McConnico (defendant)
Akerman (defendant)
Excerpts:
“Now before the Court are the Defendants’ motions to dismiss. The Defendants Booking.com BV and Booking Holdings Inc. (the “Booking Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 52), and the Defendants Expedia Group, Inc., Hotels.com L.P., Hotels.com GP, and Orbitz, LLC (the “Expedia Defendants”) filed a separate motion to dismiss (ECF No. 53). For the reasons set forth below, the Defendants’ motions are granted.”
“In sum, the Court grants the Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 52, 53) without leave to amend.2 The Plaintiffs have had multiple opportunities to plead jurisdiction and have failed to do so. Further, the Plaintiffs have not requested leave to amend; nor have they indicated in their response to the Defendants’ motion any inclination whatsoever to do so. Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Industries Am. Corp., 314 F.3d 541, 542 (11th Cir. 2002) (“A district court is not required to grant a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint sua sponte when the plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, never filed a motion to amend nor requested leave to amend before the district court.”); Avena v. Imperial Salon & Spa, Inc., 17-14179, 2018 WL 3239707, at *3 (11th Cir. July 3, 2018) (“[W]e’ve rejected the idea that a party can await a ruling on a motion to dismiss before filing a motion for leave to amend.”). The Court directs the Clerk to close this case. Any pending motions are denied as moot.”
