Expedia Asks Court Of Appeals To Ignore A Ruling By Judge In Libertad Act Lawsuit Filed Against Carnival Corporation.
/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)
Response To Appellants’ FRAP 28(J) Letter In Del Valle, Et Al. V. Expedia Group Inc., Et Al., No. 20-12407 (4/18/22)
Link To Libertad Act Lawsuit Filing Statistics
Excerpt:
“On behalf of Appellees, we write in response to the April 4, 2022 FRAP 28(j) letter filed by Appellants, which cites a district court order in Havana Docks Corp. v. Carnival Corp., No. 19-CV-21724 (S.D. Fla. March 21, 2022) (the “Order”). This court should not consider the Order as pertinent to the instant case (Del Valle) for several reasons.
First, the Order does not address personal jurisdiction, which is a determinative issue in Del Valle and was the basis for dismissal below. (See Booking Appellees’ Br. 17-44; Expedia Appellees’ Br. 12-27.)
Second, the Order is not instructive with respect to constitutional standing because the court failed to conduct the historical-analogue analysis required by the Supreme Court in TransUnion and by this Court in Muransky and Trichell. (See Appellees’ July 12, 2021 Rule 28(j) Notice; Booking Appellees’ Br. 52; Expedia Appellees’ Br. 28-30.)
Third, unlike Appellants, plaintiff Havana Docks holds a certified claim (compare App. 144, with Order 109), which entitles it to a presumption of the claim’s ownership and value. See 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(2). Because Appellants’ action is based on uncertified claims, Appellants retain the burden to plead and prove ownership and value. Accordingly, the absence of an uncertified claim in Havana Docks makes the Order inapposite in Del Valle.
Fourth, the Order is not instructive on scienter, should the Court reach that issue. (See Booking Appellees’ Br. 37 n.8; Expedia Appellees’ Br. 37-39). The Order improperly limits the scope of the scienter requirement only to one element of a Title III claim: “trafficking.” (Order 96-97.) Yet the Act’s plain language requires a showing that defendant “knowingly and intentionally” engage in all elements of a Title III claim for liability to attach. (See 22 U.S.C. § 6023(13); App. 219-20, 247-48.)
Finally, the Order is not instructive on the statute’s “lawful travel exception” because it limits the term necessary in contradiction to the legislative history. The Order also misconstrues the purpose of the exception, ignoring the OFAC regulations that provide the relevant context. (See Booking Appellees’ Br. 7, 10-11; see also U.S. Amicus Br. 30-36.)”
