U.S. District Court Dimisses Libertad Act Lawsuit Against Expedia, Booking, Hotels, Trivago, Orbitz. All About Timing.
/MARIO DEL VALLE, ENRIQUE FALLA, MARIO ECHEVARRIA V. EXPEDIA, INC., HOTELS.COM L.P., HOTELS.COM GP, ORBITZ, LLC, BOOKING.COM B.V., BOOKING HOLDINGS INC. Initial defendants were: TRIVAGO GMBH, BOOKING.COM B.V., GRUPO HOTELERO GRAN CARIBE, CORPORACION DE COMERCIO Y TURISMO INTERNACIONAL CUBANACAN S.A., GRUPO DE TURISMO GAVIOTA S.A., RAUL DOE I-5, AND MARIELA ROE 1-5, [1:19-cv-22619 Southern Florida District; 20-12407 11th Circuit Court of Appeals]
Rivero Mestre LLP (plaintiff)
Manuel Vazquez, P.A. (plaintiff)
Baker & McKenzie, LLP (defendant)
Scott Douglass & McConnico (defendant)
Akerman (defendant)
LINK To Order Granting Motion To Dismiss (8/10/23)
LINK To Libertad Act Title 3 Lawsuit Filing Statistics
“The Court finds that Plaintiffs Falla and Pou cannot plead a claim for relief under the Helms Burton Act because they acquired claims after the Act’s claims bar date, which acts as a total bar to recovery. Further, the Court finds that all three of the Plaintiffs fail to adequately plead that the Defendants knowingly and intentionally trafficked in the confiscated properties. Because these findings are sufficient to determine that the third amended complaint must be dismissed and therefore dispositive, the Court declines to address the remainder of the parties’ arguments relating to the Act, its definitions, and application here.”
“4. Conclusion: For the reasons stated above, the Court grants the Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss the complaint (ECF No. 112) and dismisses the third amended complaint, with prejudice. (ECF No. 100.) The Plaintiffs have had multiple opportunities to plead valid claims and knowing and intentional trafficking by the Defendants, but they have failed to do so. Further, the Plaintiffs have not requested leave to amend; nor have they indicated in their response to the Defendants’ motion any inclination whatsoever to do so. Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Industries Am. Corp., 314 F.3d 541, 542 (11th Cir. 2002) (“A district court is not required to grant a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint sua sponte when the plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, never filed a motion to amend nor requested leave to amend before the district court.”) The Court will separately enter judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Any pending motions are denied as moot.”
