Libertad Act Cuba Lawsuit Against China Company Dismissed By District Court Due To "Personal Jurisdiction" Issues. Will There Be An Appeal? Eight Expensive Law Firms Battle.

NORTH AMERICAN SUGAR INDUSTRIES INC., V. XINJIANG GOLDWIND SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., GOLDWIND INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS (HK) LTD., DSV AIR & SEA INC., BBC CHARTERING USA, LLC, and BBC CHARTERING SINGAPORE PTE LTD., [1:20-cv-22471; Southern Florida District].

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (plaintiff)
Mandel & Mandel (plaintiff)
Morgan, Lewis & Bochius (defendant)
Akerman (defendant)
Hogan Lovells LLP (defendant)
Leto Law Firm (defendant)
Venable LLP (defendant)
Strook & Strook & Lavan LLP (defendant)

12/14/2022- 299 ORDER ADOPTING  Judge Otazo-Reyes's Report 277 and granting Defendants' Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction 197 198 201 202. Closing Case. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles See attached document for full details. (hs01) (Entered: 12/14/2022)

12/05/2022- 298 Defendant's RESPONSE to 297 Notice of Supplemental Authority by BBC Chartering Singapore PTE Ltd., BBC Chartering USA, LLC, DSV Air & Sea Inc., Goldwind International Holdings (HK) Ltd., Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology Co., Ltd.. (Carver, Christopher) (Entered: 12/05/2022)

12/02/2022- 297 Notice of Supplemental Authority re 282 Objections to Report and Recommendations by North American Sugar Industries, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit (A) Del Valle v Trivago GmbH) (Mandel, David) (Entered: 12/02/2022)

11/02/2022- 296 PAPERLESS ORDER denying 293 Plaintiff North American Sugar Industries Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Further Support of Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes's Report and Recommendation on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and denying as moot 294 Plaintiff North American Sugar Industries Inc.'s Motion to File Under Seal Its Unredacted Proposed Reply in Support of Its Objections to Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes's Report and Recommendation on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles (hs01) (Entered: 11/02/2022)

Link To Order
Link To Libertad Act Title III Lawsuit Filing Statistics

Excerpts From Order 

This action is one of several that United States nationals, including Plaintiff, filed following the Trump Administration’s activation of Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996, 22 U.S.C. § 6021, et seq. (the “Act”). In each of these actions, the plaintiffs seek compensation under the Act from defendants who have profited from using property in Cuba that plaintiffs owned before the Cuban revolution.

Plaintiff’s property in Cuba (the “Confiscated Property”) includes the commercial shipping port, Puerto Carupano. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants trafficked in the Confiscated Property in violation of the Act. In particular, Plaintiff claims that Defendants conspired to transport wind turbine blades from Tianjin, China to Carupano, Cuba for use in a wind farm project (the “Project”). 

Following jurisdictional discovery, a hearing on the Motions, and post-hearing briefing, Judge Otazo-Reyes issued her Report. [ECF No. 277]. The Report made the following findings: 1. The Court does not have personal jurisdiction over DSV US pursuant to Florida Statute § 48.193(1)(a)(1)—the long-arm statute’s business activity prong—because Plaintiff’s claims do not arise from DSV US’s Florida-based business operations; 2. The Court does not have personal jurisdiction over any Defendant pursuant to Florida Statute § 48.193(1)(a)(2)—the long-arm statute’s tortious act prong—because (a) the place of the alleged injury is not in Florida and (b) a substantial aspect of the alleged tort was not committed in Florida; 3. Even if the long-arm statute were satisfied, Defendants do not have minimum contacts with Florida sufficient to satisfy the Due Process clause; 4. The Court does not have personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to Rule 4(k)(2) because exercising jurisdiction would not be consistent with the United States Constitution; and 5. Plaintiff’s claim for conspiracy does not provide a basis for personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because Plaintiff has not established that Defendants committed a tortious act in Florida in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. Id.