Libertad Act Lawsuit Against Expedia: "The Court rejects Defendants' argument that the Amended Complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to plead around the Lawful Travel Exception."

MARIO ECHEVARRIA, ESTHER SANCHEZ, CONSUELO CUEVAS, AND CARMEN FLORIDO V. EXPEDIA, INC., HOTELS.COM L.P., HOTELS.COM GP, LLC, ORBITZ, LLC, BOOKING.COM B.V., AND 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-22621; Southern Florida District].  Lawsuit dismissed with leave to amend on 16 November 2020.

Rivero Mestre LLP (plaintiff)
Manuel Vazquez, P.A. (plaintiff)
Baker & McKenzie, LLP (defendant- Booking Holdings, Booking.com. B.A.)

Link: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS (8/15/23)

The Court rejects Defendants' argument that the Amended Complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to plead around the Lawful Travel Exception.

Link: DEFENDANTS EXPEDIA GROUP, INC., HOTELS.COM L.P., HOTELS.COM GP, LLC, AND ORBITZ, LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT (8/28/23)

AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES Pursuant to Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Expedia Entities affirmatively state the following defenses. By listing a defense or issue below, the Expedia Entities do not admit that they bear the burden of proof on the issue or defense, and reserve its right to contend that Echevarría bears the burden of proof on the issue. 1. Echevarría’s action is barred because Echevarría did not acquire ownership of the claims to the property at issue before March 12, 1996. See 22 U.S.C. 6082(a)(4)(B). 2. Echevarría’s action is barred because the alleged transactions and uses of the property at issue were incident to lawful travel to Cuba and necessary to the conduct of such travel. See 22 U.S.C. § 6023(13)(B)(iii). 3. Echevarría’s action is barred by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because Echevarría is seeking to hold the Expedia Entities liable for conduct that was authorized by OFAC, U.S. Department of Treasury, under the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (“CACR”), 31 CFR Part 515. 4. The damages that Echevarría seeks to recover are unconstitutional because they are wholly disproportionate, grossly excessive, and bear no relationship to any conduct and dealings that the Expedia Entities had with respect to the property at issue. 5. Echevarría’s claim for damages is barred because Echevarría is seeking to recover from other entities the same damages, arising from the same property and facts, that it is seeking to recover from the Expedia Entities. In the alternative, any recovery or compensation that Echevarría receives from other sources must be set off against any recovery that it receives from the Expedia Entities. 6. Echevarría’s action is barred for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 7. Echevarría’s action is barred because it is premised on conduct undertaken by a foreign government and outside the United States. 8. Echevarría’s action is barred by the act of state doctrine, which must be applied here because it has constitutional underpinnings. 9. Echevarría’s action is barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of repose. See 22 U.S.C. § 6084. 10. Echevarría’s action is barred in whole or in part by Article II of the U.S. Constitution to the extent that Echevarría’s claim seeks to impose liability for foreign policy decisions made by the Executive Branch. 11. Echevarría’s action is barred in whole or in part by the Eighth Amendment. 12. Echevarría’s action is barred because the Helms-Burton Act is unconstitutionally vague. 13. Echevarría’s action is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. 14. Echevarría’s suit is barred due to lack of standing and a failure to present a justiciable case or controversy, in that Echevarría has not suffered an injury-in-fact that is fairly traceable to conduct by the Expedia Entities. 15. Echevarría’s suit is barred in whole or in part by the First Amendment. PRAYER For these reasons, the Expedia Entities ask the Court to enter judgment that Echevarría take nothing, dismiss Echevarría’s suit with prejudice, assess costs against Echevarría, and award the Expedia Entities all other relief the Court deems appropriate.

Related Court Cases

MARIO ECHEVARRIA, ESTHER SANCHEZ, CONSUELO CUEVAS, AND CARMEN FLORIDO V. EXPEDIA, INC., TRIVAGO GMBLJ, A GERMAN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, BOOKING.COM B.V., A DUTCH LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, GRUPO HOTELERO GRAN CARIBE, CORPORACION DE COMERCIO Y TURISMO INTERNACIONAL CUBANACAN S.A., GRUPO DE TURISMO GAVIOTA S.A., RAUL DOE 1-5, AND MARIELA ROE 1-5, [1:19-cv-22620; Southern Florida District].  Lawsuit dismissed with leave to amend on 16 November 2020.

Rivero Mestre LLP (plaintiff)
Manuel Vazquez, P.A. (plaintiff)
Baker & McKenzie (defendant- Booking Holdings, Inc., Booking.com B.V.)
Scott Douglas & McConnico LLP (defendant- Expedia, Inc., Hotels.com GP, LLC, Hotels.com L.P., Orbitz, LLC)
Akerman LLP (defendant- Expedia, Inc., Hotels,com GP, LLC, Hotels.com L.P., Orbitz, LLC)

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; Dismissed (8/10/23)]

Rivero Mestre LLP (plaintiff)
Manuel Vazquez, P.A. (plaintiff)
Baker & McKenzie, LLP (defendant)
Scott Douglass & McConnico (defendant)
Akerman (defendant)