Four Cruise Lines In Libertad Act Consolidated Lawsuit: Damages All About How To Calculate Interest Rate. Settlements? Further Appeals?
/HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION VS. CARNIVAL CORPORATION D/B/A/ CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES [Consolidated to 1:19-cv-23591; 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. [Consolidated to 1:19-cv-23591; 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. [Consolidated to 1:19-cv-23591; 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. [Consolidated to 1:19-cv-23591; 1:19-cv-23590; Southern Florida District]
Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Holland & Knight (defendant)
Order On Defendants’ Motion To Consolidate Cases For Determination Of Damages (9/1/22)
Libertad Act Title III Lawsuit Filing Statistics
Docket Text
RESPONSE in Opposition re 434 Defendant's MOTION for Reconsideration re 428 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Havana Docks Corporation. Replies due by 9/30/2022. (Martinez, Roberto) (Entered: 09/23/2022)
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE is before the Court following the status conference held on September 21, 2022. See ECF No. 438 . Based upon the representation by all parties that the issues remaining in these cases will be addressed by way of briefing, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the calendar call and jury trial are CANCELED. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom. (ak03) (Entered: 09/21/2022)
PAPERLESS Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Beth Bloom: Status Conference held on 9/21/2022. As stated on the record, the parties shall adhere to the following briefing schedule with respect to the remaining issues in these cases: Plaintiff shall file its response to the pending Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 434 , no later than September 23, 2022, and Defendants' reply shall be due no later than September 30, 2022. Plaintiff shall file its motion for entry of judgment no later than October 21, 2022; Defendants may file a response not exceeding forty (40) pages no later than November 4, 2022; Plaintiff may file a reply not to exceed thirty (30) pages no later than November 18, 2022; and Defendants may file a surreply not to exceed twenty-five (25) pages no later than December 2, 2022. Plaintiff shall file its motion for attorneys' fees and costs no later than November 4, 2022; Defendants may file a response no later than November 18, 2022; and Plaintiff may file a reply no later than December 2, 2022. Plaintiff's ore tenus motion to amend by interlineation is granted to reflect the correct entity name of MSC Cruises USA, LLC. Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings as to 434 Defendant's MOTION for Reconsideration re 428 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief : ( Responses due by 9/23/2022, Replies due by 9/30/2022.). Total time in court: 1 hour(s) : 3 minutes. Attorney Appearance(s): Scott Daniel Ponce, Corey Patrick Gray, George J. Fowler, III, Luis Emilio Llamas, Meredith L. Schultz, Pascual Armando Oliu, Pedro Armando Freyre, Rodney Stuart Margol, Roberto Martinez, Zachary Andrew Lipshultz, Stephanie Anne Casey, Aziza F Elayan-Martinez, Thomas Allen Kroeger, Andrew T. Hernacki, James Douglas Baldridge, Allen Paige Pegg, Benjamin Anthony Taormina, Court Reporter: Yvette Hernandez, 305-523-5698 / Yvette_Hernandez@flsd.uscourts.gov. (ak03) (Entered: 09/21/2022)
Excerpts From Filings
There is no reason for the Court to reconsider its Order on Defendants’ Motion to Confirm Interest Calculation Pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1)(B). (ECF No. 428.) Reconsideration is an “‘extraordinary remedy’” that may not be used “to ‘relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.’”
In its Order, the Court correctly concluded that “the proper [interest] rate to be applied [under § 6082(a)(1)(B)] is the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield for each week over the period between the date of confiscation and the date Plaintiff brought each of these actions against each Defendant.” (ECF No. 428 at 9.) Although Defendants previously pressed the Court to apply the interest rate for Case 1:19-cv-23591-BB Document 440 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2022 Page 2 of 8 3 the calendar week preceding judgment (ECF No. 398 at 4-9), they now press for a completely different rate, viz., the rate for the week each complaint was filed.
As this Court’s Interest Order explains, interest under Title III is determined by 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1)(B), which states: Interest under subparagraph (A)(i) shall be at the rate set forth in section 1961 of title 28, computed by the court from the date of confiscation of the property involved to the date on which the action is brought under this subsection. In turn, 28 U.S.C. § 1961 provides a rate in paragraph (a), stating: Such interest shall be calculated from the date of the entry of the judgment, at a rate equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding[] the date of the judgment.
