To Carnival Corporation From Court: "Instant" Not Permitted So No Early Appellate Review Of Libertad Act Lawsuit
/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)
Excerpts From Order
“Upon review, the Court concludes that the issue presented is not appropriate for appellate review because it would require the Eleventh Circuit to delve into the record to address the facts of the instant case and issue an impermissible advisory opinion as to the nature of the property interest required for liability under Title III and the requisite time period during which the alleged trafficking must have occurred.”
“Next, Defendant argues that the Court should certify the issue raised for interlocutory appeal because substantial grounds for difference of opinion exists, as evidenced by the history of this Court’s rulings in this case. Havana Docks, however, responds that a question of first impression on its own does not satisfy the requirement for substantial grounds for a difference of opinion among courts.”
“Based on the discussion above, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to meet its heavy burden of establishing that interlocutory appeal is warranted. Accordingly, the issue presented for certification does not merit deviation from the general principle that appeals should be conducted after final judgment. See McFarlin, 381 F.3d at 1264. Moreover, the Court finds that the ninety day stay Defendant requests in its Motion to Stay is not warranted, given the present posture of the case and the entry of the Court’s Amended Scheduling Order, ECF No. [80]. Thus, the Motion to Stay is also denied.”
