Libertad Lawsuits Against Four Cruise Lines: Court Questioning Certified Claimant Legitimacy- Constitutional Issues With 1960 Claims Valuation Process? Experts In; Experts Out.

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION VS. CARNIVAL CORPORATION D/B/A/ CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES [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. [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. [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. [1:19-cv-23590; Southern Florida District]
Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Holland & Knight (defendant)

Links

Reply In Support Of Defendants’ Expedited Motion To Remove Cases From Trial Calendar And Continue Remaining Pretrial Deadlines (4/5/22)
Order Amending Scheduling Order And Certain Pretrial Deadlines (4/5/22)
Order Unsealing The Summary Judgment Record (4/4/22)
Plaintiff Havana Docks Corporation’s Response To Defendants’ Expedited Motion To Remove Cases From Trial Calendar And Continue Remaining Pretrial Deadlines (4/4/22)
Joint Notice Of Filing Proposed Order On Unsealing The Summary Judgment Record (4/1/22)
45-Page Omnibus Report And Recommendation Regarding Daubert Motions (4/1/22)
Defendants’ Expedited Motion To Remove Cases From Trial Calendar And Continue Remaining Pretrial Deadlines (3/31/22)
Libertad Act Lawsuit Filing Statistics

Excerpts 

THIS CAUSE is set for trial during the Court’s two-week trial calendar beginning on August 1, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. Courtroom 10-2 at the Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. United States Courthouse, 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida 33128.  

On April 1, 2022, Magistrate Judge McAliley issued a report recommending that all of Havana Docks’ experts be excluded, including its damages experts. (the “Report,” Carnival Case, D.E. 485.) The Report also recommends excluding two (out of three) opinions rendered by the Defendants’ damages expert.2 The current deadline to object to the Report is April 15, 2022. Id. at 45. 3. Havana Docks intends to file an objection to the Report and, due to the complexity and importance of the issues involved, will be seeking a two-week enlargement of its deadline to do so. Further, in its objection, Havana Docks intends to request a Daubert hearing, which would permit the Court to explore Havana Docks’ experts’ methodology and approach to valuation. 

Havana Docks intends to file an objection to the Report and, due to the complexity and importance of the issues involved, will be seeking a two-week enlargement of its deadline to do so. Further, in its objection, Havana Docks intends to request a Daubert hearing, which would permit the Court to explore Havana Docks’ experts’ methodology and approach to valuation.  Considering that the fair market value of Havana Docks’ confiscated property is the only issue remaining for trial, and that the Report recommends that all but one valuation witness be precluded from testifying on that issue, Havana Docks agrees with the Defendants that trial preparation and presentation will be meaningfully informed by the Court’s resolution of the Daubert motions. (Mot. at 4.) Thus, Havana Docks joins the Defendants in requesting an enlargement of the remaining pretrial deadlines and the present trial setting.

Plaintiff has shown, however, that Spiller’s second opinion is not relevant. His $1.5 million value of the Confiscated Property in 1960 is less than the $9.2 million that the Commission certified; it is also less than his current fair market valuation of $46 million. The Act’s damages provision plainly states that the greater figure isthe amount of damages. It also provides that the Commission’s $9.2 million finding is presumed to be the amount of Defendants’ liability. 22 U.S.C. § 6082 (a)(1)(A), (a)(2). As the lesser and disfavored number, Spiller’s 1960 fair market value is irrelevant. Defendants may attempt to argue that Spiller’s $1.5 million 1960 value is the more “appropriate amount of liability” and if that is the case, the Court may wish to consider his opinion in that context. I otherwise recommend that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Daubert Motion and Exclude Spiller’s second opinion. 

For the reasons expressed above, I respectfully recommend that the Court GRANT Defendants’ Omnibus Motion to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff’s Experts (ECF No. 320), and exclude from evidence the testimony of John Hentschel, Franc Pigna, Michael Deiters, James Patton, Michael Garlich and José Azel. I further recommend that the Court GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Opinion of Pablo Spiller (ECF No. 328).