Now We Know: Libertad Act Lawsuit Seeks US$439,217,424.51 (US$109 Million Each) From Carnival, MSC, Norwegian, Royal Caribbean For Use Of Dock In Havana. Plus "Reasonable" Attorneys's Fees.
/HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION VS. CARNIVAL CORPORATION D/B/A/ CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES [Consolidated to 1:19-cv-23591; 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)
HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION V. MSC CRUISES SA CO, AND MSC CRUISES (USA) INC. [Consolidated to 1:19-cv-23591; 1:19-cv-23588; Southern Florida District]
Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Venable (defendant)
HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE HOLDINGS, LTD. [Consolidated to 1:19-cv-23591; 1:19-cv-23591; Southern Florida District]
Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Hogan Lovells US LLP (defendant)
HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION VS. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. [Consolidated to 1:19-cv-23591; 1:19-cv-23590; Southern Florida District]
Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Holland & Knight (defendant)
11/01/2022- 446- PAPERLESS ORDER granting 445 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Enlarge Page Limit for Motion to Determine Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Plaintiff is permitted to file a motion for attorneys' fees and costs not to exceed forty (40) pages. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom (ak03) (Entered: 11/01/2022)
11/01/2022- 445- Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Motion to Determine Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs by Havana Docks Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Martinez, Roberto) (Entered: 11/01/2022)
10/21/2022- 444- Plaintiff's MOTION for Judgment Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment by Havana Docks Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Kyle Garcia, # 2 Exhibit Proposed Final Judgments)(Martinez, Roberto) (Entered: 10/21/2022)
10/07/2022- 443- ORDER denying 434 Motion for Reconsideration re 434 Defendant's MOTION for Reconsideration re 428 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Carnival Corporation. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom See attached document for full details. (ak03) (Entered: 10/07/2022)
LINK: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT (10/21/22)
Excerpts From Court Documents:
“With respect to Carnival, Havana Docks filed its initial complaint on May 2, 2019, resulting in pre-filing interest in the amount of $27,377,359.42.10 When added to the amount certified to Havana Docks by the FCSC—$9,179,700.88—it totals $36,557,060.30. As for MSC, Royal Caribbean, and Norwegian, Havana Docks filed its initial complaint against each Defendant on August 27, 2019, resulting in pre-filing interest in the amount of $27,436,548.41. When added to the amount certified to Havana Docks by the FCSC, it totals $36,616,249.29 for each of the three Defendants. Havana Docks is further entitled to treble damages. Where a plaintiff “owns a claim with respect to that property which was certified by the FCSC,” § 6082(a)(3)(A), damages are the sum of (1) the plaintiff’s costs and reasonable attorney fees and (2) “3 times the amount determined applicable under paragraph (1)(A)(i).” § 6082(a)(3)(C). In its order on Defendants’ motion to confirm interest calculation, the Court ruled that the amount referred to in “paragraph (1)(A)(i)” is “the claim and the interest.”11 The amount subject to trebling in the Carnival action is, therefore, $36,557,060.30, and in each of the MSC, Royal Caribbean, and Norwegian actions it is $36,616,249.29. Thus, the total amount of liability in the Carnival action is $109,671,180.90 (plus costs and attorneys’ fees) and the total amount in each of the MSC, Royal Caribbean, and Norwegian actions is $109,848,747.87 (plus costs and attorneys’ fees).
WHEREFORE, Havana Docks respectfully requests the entry final judgment in each action as follows: 1. Against Carnival Corporation, in case number 19-cv-21724, the amount of $109,671,180.90, plus court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, with post[1]judgment interest to accrue thereon at the rate and manner prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961. 2. Against MSC Cruises S.A., MSC Cruises USA, LLC, f/k/a MSC Cruises (USA) Inc., in case number 19-cv-23588, the amount of $109,848,747.87, plus court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, with post-judgment interest to accrue thereon at the rate prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961. 3. Against Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., in case number 19-cv-23590, the amount of $109,848,747.87, plus court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, with post-judgment interest to accrue thereon at the rate and manner prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961. 4. Against Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd. in case number 19-cv[1]23591, the amount of $109,848,747.87, plus court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, with post-judgment interest to accrue thereon at the rate and manner prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961.”
“Upon Defendants’ Motion to Confirm Interest Calculation Pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1)(B), the Court considered Defendants’ request to confirm how it will calculate the applicable interest in this case. See ECF No. [428] (“Interest Order”). The Interest Order confirmed the applicable interest rate, determined that the interest is simple rather than compounded, and analyzed how the Helms-Burton Act’s trebling provision applies. See id. In pertinent part, Defendants argued that the applicable interest rate should be a single rate from the calendar week preceding the date of judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). However, the Court already considered and rejected Defendants’ interpretation. Specifically, the Court determined that, according to the plain language of the Helms-Burton Act, the applicable rate of interest is the weekly average 1- year constant maturity Treasury yield for each week over the period between the date of confiscation and the date Plaintiff brought each case against each Defendant. Id. at 9. In the Motion, Defendants now urge the Court to reconsider its conclusion, arguing that the reasoning in the Interest Order supports the application of a single rate as of the week each Complaint was filed in these cases. Plaintiff opposes the request, arguing that Defendants raise an entirely new argument, and the Motion is therefore improper.1
However, Defendants fail to show any inconsistency in the Court’s rulings, and Defendants’ request amounts to nothing more than disagreement with the Court’s conclusion in the Interest Order. “[W]hen there is mere disagreement with a prior order, reconsideration is a waste of judicial time and resources and should not be granted.” Roggio v. United States, No. 11- 22847-CIV, 2013 WL 11320226, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2013) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Indeed, “[i]t is an improper use of the motion to reconsider to ask the Court to rethink what the Court already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” Z.K. Marine Inc., 808 F. Supp. at 1563 (citation and alterations omitted).”
