Judge's Rulings Consolidate Libertad Act Lawsuits Against Four Cruise Lines Into One Lawsuit. Rulings About Complicated Calculations Of Damages Could Be Subject To Appeal Once Verdict Reached.

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:
Order On Defendants’ Motion To Consolidate Cases For Determination Of Damages (9/1/22)
Order On Defendants’ Motion To Confirm Interest Calculation Pursuant To 22 U.S.C. § 6082(A)(1)(B) (8/31/22)
Order On Defendants’ Motion To Confirm The Applicability Of The “One-Satisfaction Rule” (8/31/22)
Libertad Act Title III Lawsuit Filing Statistics

Court Docket

09/01/2022- Civil Case Terminated. Closing Case. (jas) (Entered: 09/01/2022)

08/31/2022- 543 ORDER ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES FOR DETERMINATION OF DAMAGES; granting 525 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion, Carnival ECF No. 525, MSC Cruises ECF No. 374, Royal Caribbean ECF No. 297, Norwegian ECF No. 411, is GRANTED. These cases are CONSOLIDATED for trial on the issue of damages. The parties are directed to file their motions in limine, if any, in Case Number 19-cv-23591. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE case numbers 19-cv-21724, 19-cv-23588, and 19-cv-23590, for administrative purposes only. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 8/31/2022. See attached document for full details. (jas) (Entered: 09/01/2022)

08/31/2022- Cases associated. (nan) (Entered: 09/01/2022)

08/31/2022- 542 ORDER denying 524 Defendants' Motion to Confirm the Applicability of the "One-Satisfaction Rule." Signed by Judge Beth Bloom. See attached document for full details. (ak03) (Entered: 08/31/2022)

08/31/2022- 541 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 513 Defendants' Motion to Confirm Interest Calculation pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1)(B). Signed by Judge Beth Bloom. See attached document for full details. (ak03) (Entered: 08/31/2022) 

Excerpts from Rulings: 

“Defendants request that the Court consolidate these four cases for the determination of Plaintiff’s damages based upon the fact that these cases present common issues of law and fact with respect to the issue of damages. Defendants further assert that the joint resolution of the issues would conserve resources and avoid inconsistent results. In response, Plaintiff does not oppose a joint trial on damages provided that procedural safeguards are in place to mitigate prejudice to Plaintiff that may arise from trying the cases together. However, Plaintiff opposes the request to the extent that Defendants seek to obtain a judgment against them collectively. Upon review, the Court determines that consolidation of these cases for a determination of damages is appropriate. Plaintiff does not oppose the request for a joint trial on the issue of damages. Moreover, the Court has already addressed, and rejected, in its Order on Defendants’ Motion to Confirm the Applicability of the One-Satisfaction Rule, Defendants’ contention that there is one injury in this case, such that they would be entitled to a single collective judgment in this case, notwithstanding a joint trial.” 

“The Court previously determined that Defendants are liable under Title III of the Helms[1]Burton Act (“Title III”), and the only issue that remains for jury trial is the appropriate award of damages.” 

“Plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount which is the greater of the certified claim, plus interest according to 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1)(A)(i)(I), or the fair market value of the property according to § 6082(a)(1)(A)(i)(III). The fair market value is “calculated as being either the current value of the property, or the value of the property when confiscated plus interest[.]” 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1)(A)(i)(III). The parties do not intend to put forth evidence regarding the value of the property when confiscated, and therefore, the fair market value is to be calculated solely as the current value of the property.” 

“In the Motion, Defendants request that the Court confirm three aspects of the interest applicable in the calculation of damages: 1) the rate; 2) whether the interest will be simple or compounded; and 3) whether the interest is trebled. Plaintiff agrees with Defendants’ requests, although not their interpretation, and urges the Court to confirm the interest calculation. The requests require that the Court examine the precise language of the statute.” 

“Defendants assert that the Court should confirm how it will calculate the applicable interest because that calculation will determine which amount is the greater amount, and thus, will impact the parties’ presentation of evidence and potential settlement negotiations. Plaintiff asserts that, to present the jury with the damages sum in this case, the Court must compute the amount of interest to be added to the certified claim. However, the parties’ assertions assume that the necessary showing in this case is that the fair market value of the property is greater than the amount of the certified claim plus interest. For the reasons that follow, the Court clarifies, as a preliminary matter, that the necessary showing in this case is that the fair market value of the property is greater than the amount of the certified claim without interest.” 

“As such, the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s interpretation is in accordance with the plain language of Title III, and concludes that the applicable rate of interest is the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield. However, contrary to Plaintiff’s suggestion that the Court should apply “effective rates”5 over the period between 1960 and 2019, the proper rate to be applied 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. Having resolved the applicable rate of interest, the Court turns to whether the interest is simple or compound.” 

“Defendants argue that because Title III is silent as to whether interest is simple or compound, that silence should be interpreted to require simple interest. Plaintiff responds that even if Title III is silent, compounding interest is proper nevertheless because it is the “norm” in federal litigation. Here again, the Court finds the plain language of Title III to be dispositive.” 

“Thus, if Congress had intended for interest under Title III to compound, it could have provided so by not limiting its incorporation of § 1961 to the “rate set forth in section 1961.” Therefore, interest under Title III does not compound. This conclusion is consistent with the general principle that “adoption by one statute of the specific provisions of another statute references the second statute as it existed at the time of the adoption, absent an expression to the contrary.” Carriers Container Council, Inc., 948 F.2d at 1225.” 

“Upon review, the Court agrees that the plain language of the statute applies the Trebling Provision to the claim and the interest. The Trebling Provision specifically refers to the “amount” determined to be applicable under paragraph (1)(A)(i). 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(3)(C)(ii).”