Spain's Iberostar Hoteles Files Motion To Dismiss, EC Document In Libertad Act Lawsuit. Court Of Appeals Ruled District Court Judge "Abused Discretion" By Permitting Too Much Time To File EU Document

The Trump-Pence Administration (2017-2021) on 2 May 2019 made operational Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as “Libertad Act”).  Title III authorizes lawsuits in United States District Courts against companies and individuals who are using a certified claim or non-certified claim where the owner of the certified claim or non-certified claim has not received compensation from the Republic of Cuba or from a third-party who is using (“trafficking”) the asset.   

The Brussels, Belgium-based European Commission (EC) required nearly three years to decide to decide to instruct the defendant to “the extent necessary to file and defend a motion to dismiss the Complaint.”  The EC also reminded the [United States] Court that it “should restrain from exercising jurisdiction over Defendant on the basis of international comity.”  Lastly, the Decision by the EC was “labeled as sensitive” and “cannot be made public without the Commission’s authorization, and it must be stored securely and encrypted in storage and transmission.”  

MARIA DOLORES CANTO MARTI, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATES OF DOLORES MARTI MERCADE AND FERNANDO CANTO BORY V. IBEROSTAR HOTELES Y APARTAMENTOS SL [1:20-cv-20078; Southern Florida District; 21-11906 11th Circuit Court of Appeals]

Zumpano Patricios P.A. (plaintiff)
Bird & Bird (defendant)
Holland & Knight (defendant)

PAPERLESS ORDER: reopening this matter and directing the Defendant to respond to the Plaintiff's complaint no later than January 11, 2023, in accordance with the mandate of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (ECF No. 66) and the Defendant's most recent status report dated December 16, 2022 (ECF No.65). The parties are further reminded of their duty to meet and confer regarding discovery and scheduling issues and to submit a joint discovery plan and conference report to the Court, as directed in the Court's order requiring scheduling conference. (ECF No.5.) The Clerk is directed to reopen this matter. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. (cst) (Entered:12/21/2022) 

LINK: Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint And Memorandum Of Law (1/11/23)
LINK: Libertad Act Title III Lawsuit Filing Statistics

From Plaintiff Filing: “1 On December 14, 2022, Iberostar Spain received a Commission Implementing Decision from the European Commission (“Decision”) on its application for authorization to respond to the Complaint in this action. In the Decision the European Commission authorized Iberostar Spain to move to dismiss this action, and specifically stated: “In the framework of such an exceptional authorisation, the Commission finds it relevant to make the following points: (a) The Commission recalls that the extra-territorial application of sanctions is an outright violation of international public law . . . . Therefore, the Commission considers that it would be against international law for the U.S. Court to exercise jurisdiction over the Applicant and an action in U.S. courts supporting such a claim is in the Union interest. (b) It is also in the Union’s interests that the U.S. Court has all the necessary elements at its disposal in order to declare its own lack of jurisdiction. This is not only desirable from a legal standpoint but it is also necessary in order to achieve the general policy objectives of Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 and protect the Applicant. U.S. courts have already dismissed other Helms-Burton lawsuits on jurisdictional grounds. (c) It is also in the Union’s interests that this case adds to the existing case law where U.S. courts dismiss Helms-Burton claims on lack of personal jurisdiction. In particular, the Commission considers it important that a default judgment in this case does not result in the creation of case law that is contrary to the interests of EU operators . . . .” The Decision expressed a need to build on the U.S. doctrine of international comity, while emphasizing that this Court does not have jurisdiction over Defendant, and it should restrain from exercising jurisdiction.”