Plaintiffs In Libertad Act Lawsuit Against Spain's Iberostar Hotels Want Court To Move Ahead Without Waiting For EU To Respond- Nearing 12 Months

MARIA DOLORES CANTO MARTI, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATES OF DOLORES MARTI MERCADE AND FERNANDO CANTO BORY V. IBEROSTAR HOTELES Y APARTAMENTOS SL [1:20-cv-20078; Southern Florida District]

Zumpano Patricios P.A. (plaintiff)
Bird & Bird (defendant)
Holland & Knight (defendant)

LINK: Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion To Lift Stay, And If Denied, Motion For Certification Of Order Under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) (3/3/21)

Defendant Imperial Brands PLC's Fourth Status Report (2/8/21)
Defendant Imperial Brands PLC's Fifth Status Report (1/25/21)

LINK: Defendant’s Status Report (2/18/21)
LINK: Defendant’s Status Report (1/19/21)

Excerpts:

Plaintiff Maria Dolores Canto Marti, as personal representative of the Estates of Dolores Martí Mercadé and Fernando Canto Bory (“Plaintiff”), respectfully moves this Court to lift the stay previously entered on April 24, 2020 [D.E. 17], and if denied, to certify the order denying such motion for certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and in support states as follows:

On April 23, 2020, Defendant Iberostar Hoteles y Apartamentos S.L. (the “Defendant” or “Iberostar”) moved to stay these proceedings so that it could obtain a ruling from the European Commission on its request for an authorization to file a response to Plaintiff’s Complaint [D.E. 16] (the “Motion to Stay”). In its filing, Defendant specifically limited the requested stay to a period of seventy-five (75) days. Motion to Stay at ¶ 2 (“To avoid a protracted delay, this request for a stay is limited to no more than 75 days.”). The next day, this Court stayed these proceedings indefinitely “until the European Union grants Iberostar’s request for authorization” and required Defendant to submit status reports every thirty days [D.E. 17] (the “April Stay Order”) (emphasis added).

Here, like in Mais, resolving the issue at hand – the propriety of a stay in this context – would certainly materially advance the case and shorten the litigation. To wit, this stay, which is pegged to the European Commission’s authorization can persist indefinitely. And, given the EU’s further opposition to the Helms-Burton Act, which was made clear in its recent Communication, such authorization may never come. Or, at best, such authorization will be substantially delayed. Determining the propriety of such a stay has the potential to move the case forward to resolution more quickly. Moreover, resolving the issue presented herein will likely reduce the amount of litigation necessary on remand because it would prevent the Defendant from repeatedly seeking authorization to participate in this case at every stage of the litigation, preventing this Court from having to stay this case at every such stage. See Section III.C., supra for a more detailed discussion on the piecemeal litigation stemming from staying this case. Even if the European Commission will grant its authorization for Defendant to move to dismiss the case in the interim, the European Commission may not otherwise allow Defendant to participate in this case without first seeking authorization, resulting in re-staying this case again and again.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court vacate the stay and allow this case to proceed. And, if this Court denies Plaintiff’s motion, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court certify this Court’s order denying the Motion to the Eleventh Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).