Almost one year ago in the cases of Havana Docks Corp. v. Carnival Corp., 19-cv-21724-BB and Garcia-Bengochea v. Carnival Corp., 19-cv-21725-JLK, U.S. District Judges Beth Bloom and Senior U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King denied Carnival’s motions to dismiss both complaints filed in the Southern District of Florida by the plaintiffs, Havana Docks Corp. and Miami surgeon Javier Garcia-Bengochea. So initially, this meant that Carnival was stuck litigating both claims over its use of property seized by the Cuban government.
Both cases concerned Carnival’s use of the Port of Santiago, where the plaintiffs claim to have owned commercial property that was expropriated by the state of Cuba following the island’s communist revolution. The lawsuits were filed after the Trump administration allowed the suspension of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act to lapse on May 2. The move empowered U.S. citizens to pursue litigation against entities who purportedly traffic in Cuban property that had been privately owned prior to the revolution.
Carnival argued for the dismissal of the complaints on the grounds that its use of the waterfront property constituted “lawful travel,” thus immunizing the company from Helms-Burton claims. The cruise line also argued that the passage of its ships through the port was “incident to lawful travel to Cuba” and “necessary to the conduct of such travel.” The company also challenged the plaintiffs’ ”direct interest” and claims of ownership over the properties in question.
Both federal judges rejected Carnival’s arguments for dismissal, finding that the lawful travel exception is an affirmative defense to trafficking that must be established by Carnival, and that Helms-Burton does not expressly make any distinction as to whether such trafficking needs to occur while a party holds a property interest in the property at issue. The courts found that Carnival “incorrectly conflates a claim to a property and a property interest.” As a result, the courts found that the complaints sufficiently alleged that the plaintiffs own a claim to the property at issue.
Fast forward almost one year later and 26 Helms-Burton lawsuits have been filed. That is pretty incredible given the barriers to bring claims—the filing fee is $7,000 and the possibility of being countersued if the claimant seeks compensation from Canadian or EU companies. The U.S. Justice Department’s Foreign Claims Settlement Commission has certified nearly 6,000 claim on property confiscated by Cub with a principal value of $1.9 billion.
Judge King ultimately ruled in favor of Carnival, citing the dismissal of another Helms-Burton claim against Amazon and Susshi International. In that case, the plaintiff inherited the property less than 4 years ago. The statute only accommodates inheritances to 1996. Establishing jurisdiction has been the biggest struggle for claimants, as the claimant must prove that the defendants are “at home” in the Southern District of Florida. In a class action case against hotel booking sites including Expedia and Trivago, the plaintiffs argued the case was appropriate here because customers in the state can access the websites to make reservations at hotels on properties once owned by their families. U.S. District Judge Robert Scola disagreed and ruled that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the companies conducted enough activity in Florida to keep the case in Miami.
If you are interested in receiving a copy of any of these decisions or wish to discuss these cases further, please contact us at blog@miamimaritimelaw.co or 305.377.3700.