Four Cruise Lines Nearing Jury Trial.... Importance Of "One-Satisfaction" Rule And Determining Damages.
/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 SCHEDULING TRIAL AND ORDER OF INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE CALENDAR CALL (7/19/22)
PLAINTIFF HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO CONFIRM THE APPLICABILITY OF THE “ONE-SATISFACTION RULE” (7/15/22)
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES FOR DETERMINATION OF DAMAGES
LINK To Libertad Act Lawsuit Filing Statistics
Excerpts:
“The “one satisfaction rule” is an equitable doctrine that sets off damage amounts recovered by a plaintiff from a joint tortfeasor to satisfy a single, indivisible harm. It is a post-trial issue to be resolved by a court after a jury returns a damages award.”
“The motions to confirm the applicability of the “one-satisfaction rule” (the “Motions”) 1 filed by Defendants Carnival Corporation, MSC Cruises, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. and Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. (collectively, the “Defendants”) should be denied for several reasons. First, the “one-satisfaction rule” is an equitable set-off doctrine that applies after trial or judgment; it is not ripe for adjudication at this stage. Second, the “rule” is not recognized in Title III and, moreover, is foreclosed by the text of the Act. Third, the “rule” does not apply on facts of these cases because (a) Havana Docks has never been satisfied so there is nothing to set off, (b) the Defendants are not joint tortfeasors or jointly and severally liable, and (c) each Defendant’s independent and unauthorized trafficking separately harmed Havana Docks. Fourth, the “rule” does not apply to punitive damages, which the Court has found Title III’s treble damages are. And fifth, to the extent Defendants request the entry of a single or collective judgment, this is contrary to Supreme Court precedent and should be denied. For these reasons, as further explained below, the Motions should be denied.”
“Plaintiff’s Response to Consolidation is unambiguous as to its position on the one topic at issue before the Court on the instant Motion: consolidation. Given Plaintiff’s concession that the requisite elements are met here for consolidation, this Court should grant Defendants’ Motion and disregard the arguments Plaintiff makes regarding interest- and one satisfaction-related issues.”
