Judge To Carnival, MSC, Norwegian, Royal Caribbean Cruise Line Defendents: "You Have Failed To Meet The Heavy Burden" So Three-Year Very Expensive Litigation To Shareholders Continues.

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)

Order On Motion For Certification For Interlocutory Appeal And Motion To Stay (5/13/22)
Plaintiff’s Response To Defendants’ Partial Objections To The Omnibus Report And Recommendation Regarding Daubert Motions (5/13/22)
Libertad Act Lawsuit Filing Statistics

Excerpts From Judge Ruling: 

Defendants argue that the second question, like the first, presents an issue of first impression, and as such, there is substantial grounds for difference of opinion. In response, Havana Docks contends that there is no substantial ground for difference of opinion because the statutory language is unequivocal in directing that courts must accept the FCSC’s determination as conclusive, and that courts lack jurisdiction to review the FCSC’s legal and factual determinations. See 22 U.S.C. §§ 6083(a)(1), 1622g, 1623(h).  

Upon review, the Court must disagree with Defendants that the fact that they raise a Due Process challenge necessarily indicates that interlocutory review would be proper in these cases. To be sure, Defendants raise an interesting issue, but not one that would overcome the strong presumption against interlocutory appeals. 

Finally, Defendants argue that resolution of the second question might indicate that a different type of trial is required, if at all. They contend that if the Eleventh Circuit were to determine that Defendants have a constitutional right to question the basis of the FCSC’s determinations, those challenges would impact the measure of damages in these cases. In response, Havana Docks argues that an interlocutory appeal of the second question would potentially multiply proceedings. On this point, the Court agrees with Havana Docks, since a finding that Defendants may challenge the FCSC’s legal and factual determinations would require additional analysis with respect to the circumstances underlying the FCSC process in these cases. IV.  

CONCLUSION Based on the discussion above, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to meet the heavy burden of establishing that interlocutory appeal is warranted. Accordingly, the questions presented for certification do not merit deviation from the general principle that appeals should be conducted after final judgment. See McFarlin, 381 F.3d at 1264. Therefore, the Court further finds that the stays Defendants request are not warranted.