American Airlines Survives: Judge Quotes John Adams. Libertad Act Lawsuit Dismissed- Plaintiff Has Standing, But Inheritance Came Too Late.

On 2 August 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, Louisiana, issued a published opinion in the Glen vs. American Airlines Libertad Act Title III lawsuit. The Court held that there is Article III standing for a Libertad Act plaintiff, and vacated the portion of the opinion of the District Court for the Northern District of Texas finding that Glen lacked Article III standing. As support for the Court’s holding, it cited to the opinions of Judge Bloom in the Havana Docks vs. Norwegian Cruise Lines litigation in the Southern District of Florida and Judge Stark in the Glen vs. Trip Advisor litigation in the District of Delaware. The Court, however, ultimately held that Glen inherited his claim too late to bring suit, and therefore entered judgment for the defendant. This is the first appellate opinion addressing the Article III standing issue and the first precedential (published) opinion addressing the inheritance issue.

The Plaintiff may choose to seek a further review by the full Fifth Circuit and/or may seek review from the United States Supreme Court.

ROBERT M. GLEN V. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., [1:19-cv-23994 Southern Florida District; 4:20-cv-00482-A Transferred To Northern Texas District; 5th Circuit Court of Appeals 20-10903]

Reid Collins & Tsai (plaintiff)
Ewusiak Law, P.A. (plaintiff)
Jones Day (defendant)
Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP (defendant)

LINK To Opinion (8/2/21)
LINK To Libertad Act Title III Lawsuit Statistics

Excerpts From Opinion

“The Founders recognized that the protection of private property is indispensable to the promotion of individual freedom. As John Adams tersely put it, ‘[p]roperty must be secured, or liberty cannot exist.’” Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 141 S. Ct. 2063, 2071 (2021) (quoting Discourses on Davila, in 6 Works of John Adams 280 (C. Adams ed. 1851)). Channeling that spirit, Congress responded to Fidel Castro’s widespread confiscation of property in Cuba by enacting the Helms-Burton Act into law in 1996. See 22 U.S.C. § 6021 et seq. The Act allows any United States national with a claim to property confiscated by the Cuban Government to sue any person who traffics in such property. Id. § 6082(a)(1)(A).

In that same spirit, we disagree with the district court’s decision to dismiss Robert Glen’s claim under the Act for lack of standing. We side instead with courts that have held that “the legally cognizable right provided by the Helms-Burton Act to the ‘rightful owners’ of properties” confiscated by Castro “allows [those property owners] to assert a concrete injury based on Defendants’ alleged ‘trafficking’ in the [those] [p]roperties.” Glen v. Trip Advisor LLC, 2021 WL 1200577, at *6 (D. Del. Mar. 30, 2021). See also Havana Docks Corp. v. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd., 484 F. Supp. 3d 1215, 1227–27 (S.D. Fla. 2020) (same).

But Glen’s claim ultimately fails on the merits because it does not satisfy certain statutory requirements under the Act. If the property giving rise to suit was confiscated before March 12, 1996, a United States national may not bring an action under the Act unless he acquired ownership of the claim before March 12, 1996. 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(4)(B). We agree with the district court’s alternative conclusion that this time limit is fatal to this suit, because the property in which Glen claims an ownership interest was confiscated before 1996—yet he did not inherit his claim to that property until after 1996. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s dismissal of the case for lack of standing and render judgment for the defendant.

Glen has standing to sue. But he acquired ownership of the properties through inheritance after 1996, so his claim fails on the merits. Accordingly, we vacate the dismissal of the case for lack of standing and render judgment for the defendant.

Because this issue is dispositive, we need not address the district court’s alternative rationale for dismissal on the merits—Glen’s purported failure to plead that American acted with the requisite knowledge and intent.