Members of the United States Congress will follow closely how the Biden-Harris Administration (2021- ) responds to the United States Court Of Appeals For The Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta, Georgia. How words are defined may be a catalyst to seek legislative changes to the text (particularly Title III) of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act (“Libertad Act”) of 1996.

The Court invites the United States to address the following questions concerning the Helms-Burton Act, 22 U.S.C. § 6082:

1. Does the term “United States national” in 22 U.S.C. §§ 6082(a)(4)(B) and 6082(a)(4)(C) refer to the plaintiff bringing the action, or the original claimant to the confiscated property, or both?

2. What does the word “acquire[ ]” in 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(4)(B) mean? Is inheritance encompassed in the term “acquire[ ]?” And if “acquire[ ]” does include inheritance, at what point is a claim “acquire[d]” by an heir within the meaning of the statute?

3. How, if at all, does the phrase “assignment for value” in 22 U.S.C. §6082(a)(4)(C) affect the pool of eligible claimants compared to the pool of eligible claimants under 22 U.S.C. §6082(a)(4)(B)?

4. What effect, if any, does the President’s ability to suspend Title III pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 6085(b) have on defining the class of eligible claimants who can bring an action under 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(4)? Does the President’s ability to suspend Title III imply that the statute was drafted to allow the heirs of American citizens – whose property was unlawfully confiscated and “trafficked” by third parties – to bring claims under 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(4)?

5. What effect, if any, does the lawful travel exception, 22 U.S.C. §6023(13)(B)(iii), have on the plaintiffs’ claims? What effect, if any, does the possibility that the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) can change the permissible reasons for travel to Cuba have on the lawful travel exception?

6. What does the phrase “incident to lawful travel” in 22 U.S.C. §6023(13)(B)(iii) mean? Who or what defines “lawful travel” (e.g. OFAC)? What guidance should persons and entities look to in determining whether their activities are “incident to lawful travel?”

MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES
Appeal Number: 20-12407-DD ; 20-12960 -BB ; 20-14251 -BB
Case Style: Mario Del Valle, et al v. Trivago GMBH, et al
District Court Docket No: 1:19-cv-22619-RNS

MARIO DEL VALLE, ENRIQUE FALLA, ANGELO POU, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus TRIVAGO GMBH, a German Limited Liability Company, BOOKING.COM B.V., a Dutch Limited Liability Company, GRUPO HOTELERO CARIBE, CORPORACION DE COMERCIO Y TURISMO INTERNACIONAL CUBANACAN S.A., GRUPO DE TURISMO GAVIOTA S.A., RAUL DOE 1-5, MARIELA ROE 1-5, EXPEDIA, INC., et al., Defendants - Appellees. No. 20-12407-DD.

JAVIER GARCIA-BENGOCHEA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARNIVAL CORPORATION, a foreign corporation d.b.a. Carnival Cruise Lines, Defendant - Appellee. No. 20-12960-BB.

JAVIER GARCIA-BENGOCHEA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., Defendant - Appellee. No. 20-14251-BB.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

BEFORE: JORDAN, NEWSOM, and BURKE,* District Judge.
ORDER: The Court invites the United States – through the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and/or the Office of the Legal Adviser to the State Department –to file an amicus brief in Mario Del Valle, et al., v. Trivago GMBH, et al., No.20-12407 (argued Oct. 4, 2021), Javier Garcia-Bengochea v. Carnival Corporation, No. 20-12960 (argued Oct. 4, 2021), and Javier Garcia-Bengochea v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, LTD., No. 20-14251 (argued Oct. 4, 2021), pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 29(a)....The Court invites the United States to address the following questions concerning the Helms-Burton Act, 22 U.S.C. § 6082:...The court asks that the U.S. file its amicus brief by 2/25/22... AJ, KCN and LCB (See attached order for complete text) [20-12407, 20-12960, 20-14251] [Entered: 12/20/2021 04:48 PM]

The Court invites the United States to address the following questions concerning the Helms-Burton Act, 22 U.S.C. § 6082:

1. Does the term “United States national” in 22 U.S.C. §§ 6082(a)(4)(B) and 6082(a)(4)(C) refer to the plaintiff bringing the action, or the original claimant to the confiscated property, or both?

2. What does the word “acquire[ ]” in 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(4)(B) mean? Is inheritance encompassed in the term “acquire[ ]?” And if “acquire[ ]” does include inheritance, at what point is a claim “acquire[d]” by an heir within the meaning of the statute?

3. How, if at all, does the phrase “assignment for value” in 22 U.S.C. §6082(a)(4)(C) affect the pool of eligible claimants compared to the pool of eligible claimants under 22 U.S.C. §6082(a)(4)(B)?

4. What effect, if any, does the President’s ability to suspend Title III pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 6085(b) have on defining the class of eligible claimants who can bring an action under 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(4)? Does the President’s ability to suspend Title III imply that the statute was drafted to allow the heirs of American citizens – whose property was unlawfully confiscated and “trafficked” by third parties – to bring claims under 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(4)?

5. What effect, if any, does the lawful travel exception, 22 U.S.C. §6023(13)(B)(iii), have on the plaintiffs’ claims? What effect, if any, does the possibility that the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) can change the permissible reasons for travel to Cuba have on the lawful travel exception?

6. What does the phrase “incident to lawful travel” in 22 U.S.C. §6023(13)(B)(iii) mean? Who or what defines “lawful travel” (e.g. OFAC)? What guidance should persons and entities look to in determining whether their activities are “incident to lawful travel?”

The Court asks that the United States file its amicus brief by February 25, 2022, at which time the parties in the cases will be permitted to respond. Should the United States elect not to file an amicus brief, it should so notify the Court by January 25, 2022.

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
UNITED STATES SOLICITOR GENERAL
OFFICE OF THE LEGAL ADVISER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Southern District Attorneys)

LINK To Order (12/20/21)
LINK To Libertad Act Title III Lawsuit Statistics

American Airlines Libertad Title III Lawsuit Becomes First To Seek Review By United States Supreme Court. Twenty-Nine Months From District Court To SCOTUS Is Fast. December 20, 2021

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; 20-12407 11th Circuit Court of Appeals]

Rivero Mestre LLP (plaintiff)
Manuel Vazquez, P.A. (plaintiff)
Baker & McKenzie, LLP (defendant)
Scott Douglass & McConnico (defendant)
Akerman (defendant)

JAVIER GARCIA-BENGOCHEA V. CARNIVAL CORPORATION D/B/A/ CARNIVAL CRUISE LINE, A FOREIGN CORPORATION [1:19-cv-21725 Southern Florida District; 20-12960 11th Circuit Court of Appeals]

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

JAVIER GARCIA-BENGOCHEA VS. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. [1:19-cv-23592; Southern Florida District; 20-14251 11th Circuit Court of Appeals]

Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Creed & Gowdy, P.A. (plaintiff)
Holland & Knight (defendant)

Economic Eye On Cuba

Court Of Appeals "Invites" Biden-Harris Administration To Answer Six Questions In Libertad Act Lawsuits That May Impact More Than Cuba Lawsuits. Will They Answer? Due By 25 January 2022.

U.S. - Cuba Trade and Economic Council, Inc.