Cuba: Oral Argument At Court Of Appeals In Libertad Act Lawsuit Against Four Cruise Lines Moving US$439.2 Million (Plus US$11.7 Million In Attorney Fees) Verdict Nearer To Conclusion.
/Oral Argument At 11th Circuit Court Of Appeals In Libertad Act Lawsuit Against Four Cruise Lines Moving US$439.2 Million (Plus US$11.7 Million In Attorney Fees) Verdict Nearer To Conclusion.
The Original Complaint Was Filed On 2 May 2019. The Four Cruise Lines And Plaintiff Have Retained More Than Eight Law Firms With More Than Fifty-Seven Attorneys Assigned To The Lawsuits.
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.
In December 2022, A United States District Court For The Southern District Florida Awarded Plaintiff US$439,217,424.51 Million And US$11,707,484.31 In Legal Fees. The Award Continues To Accrue Interest.
If The United States District Court Verdict Is Upheld, Losing Party Would Likely Seek “en banc” Review By All Twelve Members Of 11th Circuit Court Of Appeals. If Not Granted, Losing Party Has Ninety Days To Ask The United States Supreme Court To “grant a writ of certiorari” And Agree To Hear The Appeal.
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]; Judgement Entered 12/30/22; 23-10171, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals].
Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Ellis George LLP (plaintiff)
Jones Walker LLP (defendant)
Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (defendant)
Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP (defendant)
Akerman LLP (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]; Judgement Entered 12/30/22; 23-10171, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals].
Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Venable (defendant)
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (defendant)
HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE HOLDINGS, LTD. [Consolidated to 1:19-cv-23591; 1:19-cv-23591; Southern Florida District]; Judgement Entered 12/30/22; 23-10171, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals].
Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Hogan Lovells US LLP (defendant)
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP (defendant)
HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION VS. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. [Consolidated to 1:19-cv-23591; 1:19-cv-23590; Southern Florida District]; Judgement Entered 12/30/22; 23-10171, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals].
Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Holland & Knight (defendant)
Clement & Murphy (defendant)
LINK To Oral Argument Recording (17 May 2024)
LINK: After 43 Months, Florida District Court Judge Hands First Cuba Libertad Act Verdict- Four Cruise Lines Must Pay US$439,217,424.51 Plus US$11,707,484.31 In Legal Fees. Appeals Probable. December 30, 2022
LINK: Carnival Corporation Secures US$124.6 Million Surety Bond As It Pursues Appeal Of December 2022 Libertad Act Lawsuit Verdict Against It And Three Other Cruise Companies. April 25, 2023
LINK To Libertad Act Title III Lawsuit Filing Statistics
05/17/2024- Oral argument held this date. Oral Argument presented by Paul D. Clement for Appellant RCL and Christopher Landau for Appellee Havana Docks Corporation in 23-10151, Paul D. Clement for Appellant-Cross Appellee RCL, Kannon K. Shanmugam for Appellant-Cross Appellee CCL and Christopher Landau for Appellee-Cross Appellant Havana Docks Corporation in 23-10171. [23-10151, 23-10171] [Entered: 05/17/2024 01:51 PM]
Excerpts From Court Documents:
“With respect to Carnival, Havana Docks filed its initial complaint on May 2, 2019, resulting in pre-filing interest in the amount of $27,377,359.42.10 When added to the amount certified to Havana Docks by the FCSC—$9,179,700.88—it totals $36,557,060.30. As for MSC, Royal Caribbean, and Norwegian, Havana Docks filed its initial complaint against each Defendant on August 27, 2019, resulting in pre-filing interest in the amount of $27,436,548.41. When added to the amount certified to Havana Docks by the FCSC, it totals $36,616,249.29 for each of the three Defendants. Havana Docks is further entitled to treble damages. Where a plaintiff “owns a claim with respect to that property which was certified by the FCSC,” § 6082(a)(3)(A), damages are the sum of (1) the plaintiff’s costs and reasonable attorney fees and (2) “3 times the amount determined applicable under paragraph (1)(A)(i).” § 6082(a)(3)(C). In its order on Defendants’ motion to confirm interest calculation, the Court ruled that the amount referred to in “paragraph (1)(A)(i)” is “the claim and the interest.”11 The amount subject to trebling in the Carnival action is, therefore, $36,557,060.30, and in each of the MSC, Royal Caribbean, and Norwegian actions it is $36,616,249.29. Thus, the total amount of liability in the Carnival action is $109,671,180.90 (plus costs and attorneys’ fees) and the total amount in each of the MSC, Royal Caribbean, and Norwegian actions is $109,848,747.87 (plus costs and attorneys’ fees).
WHEREFORE, Havana Docks respectfully requests the entry final judgment in each action as follows: 1. Against Carnival Corporation, in case number 19-cv-21724, the amount of $109,671,180.90, plus court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, with post[1]judgment interest to accrue thereon at the rate and manner prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961. 2. Against MSC Cruises S.A., MSC Cruises USA, LLC, f/k/a MSC Cruises (USA) Inc., in case number 19-cv-23588, the amount of $109,848,747.87, plus court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, with post-judgment interest to accrue thereon at the rate prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961. 3. Against Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., in case number 19-cv-23590, the amount of $109,848,747.87, plus court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, with post-judgment interest to accrue thereon at the rate and manner prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961. 4. Against Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd. in case number 19-cv[1]23591, the amount of $109,848,747.87, plus court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, with post-judgment interest to accrue thereon at the rate and manner prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961.”
“Upon Defendants’ Motion to Confirm Interest Calculation Pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1)(B), the Court considered Defendants’ request to confirm how it will calculate the applicable interest in this case. See ECF No. [428] (“Interest Order”). The Interest Order confirmed the applicable interest rate, determined that the interest is simple rather than compounded, and analyzed how the Helms-Burton Act’s trebling provision applies. See id. In pertinent part, Defendants argued that the applicable interest rate should be a single rate from the calendar week preceding the date of judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). However, the Court already considered and rejected Defendants’ interpretation. Specifically, the Court determined that, according to the plain language of the Helms-Burton Act, the applicable rate of interest 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 case against each Defendant. Id. at 9. In the Motion, Defendants now urge the Court to reconsider its conclusion, arguing that the reasoning in the Interest Order supports the application of a single rate as of the week each Complaint was filed in these cases. Plaintiff opposes the request, arguing that Defendants raise an entirely new argument, and the Motion is therefore improper.
However, Defendants fail to show any inconsistency in the Court’s rulings, and Defendants’ request amounts to nothing more than disagreement with the Court’s conclusion in the Interest Order. “[W]hen there is mere disagreement with a prior order, reconsideration is a waste of judicial time and resources and should not be granted.” Roggio v. United States, No. 11- 22847-CIV, 2013 WL 11320226, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2013) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Indeed, “[i]t is an improper use of the motion to reconsider to ask the Court to rethink what the Court already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” Z.K. Marine Inc., 808 F. Supp. at 1563 (citation and alterations omitted).”
