Garcia-Bengochea v. Carnival Corporation, No. 1:2019cv21725 - Document 41 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER Denying 14 Carnival Corporation's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Senior Judge James Lawrence King on 8/26/2019. See attached document for full details. (jw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Garcia-Bengochea v. Carnival Corporation Doc. 41 UNITED STATESDIjTRICT COURT SOUTH ERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA M IAM ID IVISIO N C ASE N O .1:19-cv-21725-JLK JAVIER OARCIA-BENGOCHEA, Plaintiff, CARNIVAL CORPOM TION d/b/a CA M IV A L CRUISE LIN E, Defendant. ORDER DENYING CARNIVAL CORPORATION 'S M OTION TO DISM ISS THISMATTE: isbeföretiaeCoul'tonDe?endantCainivalCorporqtion'sMosiont: Dismiss,filedM ay3t,2019(DE 14).TheCourthasalsoconsideredPlaintiffsRespqnsein Opposition(DE 24),andCarnival'sReplyBrief(DE 27).lnaddition,theCourtheardpral argum enton the M otion on July 31,2019. 1. BA CK G R O U ND A. The H elm s-Burton A çt On M arch 12,1996,Congrçsspassed thy Cuban Liberty and Dem oèraticSolidarity (LIBERTAD)Actof1996,22U.S.C.jj6021-6091,commonlyreferredtoastheçdl-lelmsBurton A ct.'' In addition to strengthening internationalsanctions againstthe Cuban G overnm ent, , ' . underHelm s-Burton,Congresssoughtto tsprotectUnitrd Statrsnationalsagainstcontiscatory takingsandthewrongfultrafsckinginpropertyconfiscatedbytheCastroregime.''22U.S.C.j 6022(6).'AccordingtoCongresj'sfindings,Csstrafficking'incontiscatedpropertyjtovidesbadly needed financiàlbeneft ...to the Cuban Governm entand thus underm inesthe foreign policy of Dockets.Justia.com theUnitedStates,''includingttprotectging)claimsofUnited Statesnationalswhohadproperty l ' . wrongfully confiscatedbytheCubanGovernment.''Id j6081(6)(B).tç'l-o detertrafficking.y'' j ' Congressfoundthatththevictimsofthesecontiscationsshouldbeendowed withajùdicial remedy in thécourtsoftheUnited Statesthatwould deny traffickersany profitsfrom economicallyexploitingCastro'swrongfulseizures.''Id j6081(11). ' . . Tothatçnd,dongresscreatedaprivatezightofaction againstanyperson who Estraf/cs'' . incontiscatedCubanpropel-ty. Seeid.j6082(a)(1)(A);id jd023(13)(A)(definingûstraffics''). Specifically,underTitle1IIoftheAct,llany person that...trafficsin property which was confiscated by theCuban Governm enton orafterJanuary 1,1959,shallbe liableto any United , ' ' Statesnationalwhoownstheclaim tosuchpropertyformgneydamages.''Id j6082(a)(1)(A).1 Shortly aflerHelm s-Burton waspassed,however,thePresidentinvoked TitleIIl'swaiver k ' f provision,andt'TitleIl1hassince been waived every six months,...and hasnevereffectively beenapplied.''OdebrechtConst,Inc.v.Prasad,876F.Supp.2d 1305,1312(S.D.Fla.2012). Thatchangedon Alril17,2019,whentheU.S.DepartmentofStatearmouncedthatthefederàl governm ent(Ew illno longer suspend Title 111.'' See U .S.D epartm entofState,Se' cretary ofState M ichaelR.PompeorsRemarkstothePress(Apr.17,2019),https://- .state.gov/remarks-to- the-press-l1/.Asaresult,TitleI1IbecameeffectiveforthefirsttimeonM ay2,/2019(which Carnivaldoesnotdispute). B. This C ase . % Thatsameday,PlaintiffJavierGarcia-Bengochea fledthis(itraffcking''action under H elm s-Burton. Plaintiffallegesthathe isthe Strightfulow nerofan 82.5% interestin certain 1TheActliststheamountofmoneydamagesavailableunderTitleI1tasthegreaterof:(a)the am ountcertified by the Foreign Claim s Settlem entCom m ission underthe InternationalClaim s SettlémentActof1949,(b)theamountdetelnninedbyaspecialmasterpursuanttoj6083(a)(2), or(c)thefairmarketvqlueoftheproperty.Teeid.j6082(a)(1)(A)(i). com mercialwaterfrontrealpropely in thePortofSantiago deCuba.''seecompl.!6,DE 1. 2 TheComplaintallegesihatin October1960,t'thecommunistCubanGovernmentna'tionalized, ,' w expropriated,andseizedownershipandcontmloftheSubjectProperty.''Id.!!7-8.Atthe time,thepropertywasownedandoperatedbyaCubancoporationnamedLaM aritima,S.X., which wàsalsonationalized by theCuban Governm entin 1960.1d.,Ex.A. Plaintiffclaimsthat CarnivalSttrafficked''in theconfiscatedproperty when itSdcom menced,conducted,andprom oted , itstommercialcruiselinebusinesstoCubausingtheSubjeciPropertybyregularlyembarking anddisembarkingitspassengersontheSubjectProperty.''Id.! 12.Plaintiffthereforeseeks m oney dam agesagainstCarnivalpursuantto Title I1I ofH elm s-Burton. C. C arnival'sM otion to D ism iss On M ay 30,d'2019,Carnivalm oved to dism issPlaintiff'sComplaintforfailureto'state a , claim .SeeM ot.D' ism iss,DE 14. Cnrnivalm akesthreeargum entsin supportofdism issal.First, Carnivalclaim sthis qction is ban-ed by the Eclawfultravel''exception to Citrafficking.'''See id.at 12(citing j6023(13)(B)(iii)).AccordingtoCarnival,SsgtlopleadtraffickingundertheAct,itis notenough topleadthatadefendantwasusing confiscated Cuban property,''butrather,:$a . . ' plaintiffm ustgo aqstepfurtherandplead...thattheuseofthepropertywasnoti ncident(or necessaryqtolawfultravel.''f#. BecausePlaintiffdoesnotpleadthesefacts(andbecause Calmivalclaim sitsuse ofthe docksw asboth incidentand necessary to lawf'ultravelin any event),CarnivalarguesthattheComplaintshouldbedismissedwithprej 'udice.Seeftfat13,19. Second,CarnivalarguesthatPlaintiffallegesin conclusory fashion thatheistheGcrightf' ul ow ner''ofthe claim tp the property,w hich Carnivalcontends i s tçunderm ined by the docum ents k . 2A ccording to the Com plaint, 32.5% ofPlaintiff's ownership interestisbased upon a certified claim issued by the Foreign Claim s Settlem entCom m ission,which is attached as an ekhibitto theComplaint.fJ.!10,Ex.A.TheitremainingportionofPlaintiffsinterestintheSubject Propertyisbaseduponanuncertifiedclaim.''f#.! 11. ' Plaintiffattached tohi$own Complaint.''Id.at19. Speqifically,Carnivalnotesthàtthecertified . ' claim /attachedtotheComplaintltisnotin (Plaintiff'sjownname,''butStwasownedbyAlbe14J. Pan-eno,''anon-paity tothislitigation.J#. ThirdsCarnivalarguesthateven ifPlaintiffdid acquire ownership ofParreno'scertified claim ,Plaintiffstilldoesnotowna Esdirectinterest''in theconfiscated property becauset'the claim concernsstock ingLaM aritimaq,whichinturnownedthedocks.''Id at17.InCalmival's view,thisrequiresdismissalbecause,Stlaqsamatterofcoporatelaw,Plaintiffdoesnotowna claim to thedocksthemselves.'' Id.at18.And becguseLa V aritimaftisnotaU nited States nationalcapableofbringing aHelm s-Burton claim ,''CarpivalsaysPlaintiffcannotsavehiscase by attem pting to bring the action on behalfofthe com pany. 1d D. Plaintiff'sR esponse . OnJune24,2019,PlaintifffiledhisResponsetotheM otiontoDismiss.SeeP1.'skesp., DE 24. Astqtrafficking,PlaintiffarguesthattheCtlawfultravel''exception isan affirmative defense to liability underthe Actand therefore need notbe refm ed ornegated in the Com plaint to statea claim. See id.at5. PlaintiffcontendsthattheComplaintadequately allegesCarnival traffcked w ithin the m eaning ofH elm s-Burton by using the docks foritscom m ercialcnlise line business. See id.at4. W ith respbcttb Carnival'sargum entson Plaintiffsownership ofa claim totheproperty, PlaintiffsprincipalresponseisthatCarnivalCtcontlatesgjanownershipinterestinthe confiscatedprtw cr/y w ith ownership ofa claim to such property.'' f#.at 17. A ccording to Plaintiff,because Congressçsused iclearand unam biguouslanguage'to denpteitsclaim-spezific view ofTitle 111,''a plaintiffneed only allege tcow nership ofa claim ,''notow nership ofthe jropertyitself.1d.Andhere,Plaintiffargues,thefourcornersoftheComplaintsufticiently al1egethathJownsaclaim toan 82.5% interestintheproperty.Seeid at23.Finally,Plaiqtiff arguesthatdismissalisnotwarrantedjustbecausehiscertifiedclaim isto stockihtheCuban corporation thatowned and operatedthedockswhen thèy wereconfiscated. Il. LEG A L STAN DA R D To survive a m otion to dism iss,a com plaintm ustinclude Gtenough factsto state a claim toreliefthatisplausibleonitsface.''BellAtl.Corp.v.Twolnbly,550U.S.544,570(20û7).A Stclaim hasfacialplausibility when theplaintiffpleadsfactualcontehtthatallowsthecoylrtto draw thereasonableinferencethatthedefendantisliableforthemisconductalleged.''Ashcro? v.Iqbal,556U.S.662,678(2009).Inrulingonamotion todismiss,thecouh mustacceptthe factualallegationsinthecomplaintastrueand construethem inthelightmostfavorabletotlte plaintif .f.SeeAdinofev.UnLtedTechs.Corp.,768F.3d 1161r1169(11th Cir.2014). 111.DISCUSSION A. PlaintiffN eed N ot'N egate the Law fulTravelD efense in the C om plaintto State a T rafficlking C laim U nderH elm s-Burton Asaninitialrgatter,theCourtdisagreeswitl' kCarnival'sargumentthattheComplaint . shouldbedismissedbecausePlaintiffdidnotpleadarotmdthelawfultraveldefense.ltgA. jn affirm ativedefenseisonethatadmitsto the complaiht,butavoidsliability,wholly orpartly,by new allegationsofexcuse,justification,orothernegatingmatters.''.VP Props.(f Devs.,LLLP v. Teneca s' p ccïtz//.pIhs.Co.,645F.App'x912,916(11th Cir.2016)(internalquotationmarksand k citationomitted).Thebtlrdenofestablishinganaffirmativedefenserestswiththedefendant--s the ltone who claim s itsbenefits.'' M çacham v.K nollsA tom ic Pow erLab.,554 U .S.84,93 (2008).ls-l-hetoucistonefordeterminingtheburdenofprooftmderastatutorycauseofactionis the statute itself.'' Thom asv.G eorge,H artz,Lundeen,Fulm er,Johnstone,K ing,and Stevens, W hiletheûtordinarydefaultrulegisqthatplaintiffs >' . . beartheriskoffailingtoprovetheirclaims,''theburden isproperlyplaceéonthedefendant when certain issuesGdcap fairly becharacterized asafsrm ativedefensesorexemptions.''fJ. For instance,whenastatuteS'exemptgsqothenviseilleg 'alconductbyreferençetoaf' urtheritem of proof,''thisstrongly suggeststhatCongressintended to creàtean affirmativçdefense. See M eacham,554 U .S.at93. Based on thetextarfd structureofHelm s-Burtoh,theCourtholdsthatthelawfultravel exception isan aflirmativedefenseto traffickingthatm ustbeestablishedby Carnival,not ' . , negated by Plaintiff.Asnotéd above,Helm s-Burton createsacauseofaction againstany person who-vafucs''inconuscatedcubanyropèrty.seej '608j(a)(1)(A).'rheAc' tdefines-'trafucs', ' . . asfollow s: (A)Asusediri,subchapter111,andexceptasprovidedin subparagraph'(. B),a person ûtraffics'in confiscatedproperty ifthatperson knowingly and intentionally-- (i)sells,trapsfers?distributes,disprnses,brokers,manages,orotherwisé disposes ofconfscated property,orpurchases,leases,receives,possesses, obtains controlof,m anages,uses,orotherwise acquires orholds an intefestin cdnfiscated property, %, , (ii)engagesinacommerçialactivityusingorotherwisebenefkingfrom > cpnfiscated property,or (iii)causes,directs,participatesin,orprofitsfrom,trafficking(asdescribedin clause(i)or(ii))byanotherperson,orotherwiseengagesintrafficking(as dçscriàèdinclause.ti)or(ii))throughanotherperson,.... . 1 . . . X.j6O23(13)(A).TheplArateCtexcep.tasprovidedinsubparagraph (B)''is vwherethelawful travelprovision comesin.Undersubparagraph(B),traffickingGtdoesnotincludetransactions andusesofproperty incidentto lawf'ultravelto Cuba,to theextentthatsuch transactionsarèd ugesofpropertyarenecessarytotheconductofsucotravel. 1 .j Byusi lngthephrase16exceptasprovidedin subparagraph(B)''immediately befom describingtheconductthatconstitutestraffcking,Congressexpressed a clearlntentto m akethe 6 travelprovision an exception to unlawfultrafficking. M oreover,becausethisstatutory exception requiresproofofnew facts(i.e.,conductthatwasltincident''and(ûnecessary''toSElawfultravel'') itfitsthem old ofatraditionalaffirm ativedefendethatraisesStnew allegationsofexcuse, justification,orothernegatingmatters.''VP Props.& Devs.,LLLP,645F.App'xat916.3 W hile Cam ivalattem ptsto analogize to case law interpreting the Driver'sPrivacy ProtectionAct(CIDPPA'')andtheFairDebtCollectionPracticesAct(ITDCPA''),theCoul'tis notpersuaded. Carniyalreliesprimarily on theEleventh Circuit'sdecision in Thomas,525F.3d at1112. SeeReply at5-6. In thatcase,the courtheld thatthe DPPA required theplaintiffto show thathispersonalinform ation w asobtained S'fora purpose notperm itted''by the statute, rejectingtheplaintiff'sargumentthatthe(l permissibleuseslisted Einthestatutejf' unctionas statutory exceptions''and should beviewed asaffrm ativedefenses. Thomas,525 F.3d at1112. ButtheDPPA isunique,becauseeven though itprohibitsobtaining adriver'spersonal inform ation Ctfora purpose notperm itted,''the statute only describesthe purposesthatare perm itted. See id.at1110-12. A s such,the Eleventh Circuitconcluded,a plaintiffm ust establish anegativeby showingthatthedefendant'spup osewasnotam ongthoseperm itted by thestatute.Seeftf By contrast,theHelm s-Burton Actexplainsexactly whatdoesand doesnot constituteunlawf'ultrafficking.Comparej6023(13)(A)with 56023(13)(B).Thus,unlikethe DPPA,Helm s-Burton fiam esthetravelprovision asan exception to otherwiseuniawfulconduct, notaslawf'ulconductthatm ustbenegated by theplaintiffto stateaclaim ,. 3Carnivalrelieson the legislative history to slpggestthatCongressintended otherwise, butthe legislative history actually cutsagainstCalmival'sargum ent. Carnivalrelies on language from the Com m ittee Reportstating thatthe law fultravelprovision w as intended to Clrem ove any liabilityforanyactivitiesrelatedtolawf' ultravel.''SeeM ot.Dismissat18(quoting 142 CONG. llsc.111645-02at1-11656)(bracketsandellipsesomitted).Buttoremoveliabilitypresupposes thatliability w ould otherw ise existabsentthe exception. Thus,the legislative history cited by Carnivalonly reinforces the conclusion thatthis is an affirm ative defense. In addi' tion, CarnivalattemptstoanalogizetotheFDCPA,andreliesonBenjaminv. ' CitiM ortgage,Inc.,No.12-62291,2013W L 1891284,at#3(S.D.Fla.M ay 6,2013)(findinj thattheplaintifffailedto plead thatthedefendantwasaCddebtcollector''tm dertheFDCPA becausethestatuteexcludescertainpel'sonsfrom thedefinitionofttdelk collector''andthe complaintdidnotallegefactsnegatingthatexclusion).ButCarnivalcitesnoEleventhCircuit casesinterpretingtheFDCPA inthismanner,andtheCourtfindsBenjaminunpersuasiveonthis pointbecausethecourtdid notexplain itsreasoningforplacingtheburden on theplaintiffto negate an'exclusion to (tdebtcollector''status. : N or isthe Courtpersuaded by Carnival's argum entthatdism issalis appropriate because the lawf' ultraveldefense islûapparenton the face''ofthe Com plaint. See Reply at9. U nderRule l2(b)(6),acbmplaintmay bedismissedbasedon anaffirmativedefenseonlywherethedefense tsclearlyappearsonthefaceofthecomplainta''SeeQuillerv.BarclaysAmerican/crediqInc., 727F.2d 1067,1069(11thCir.1984),aff'dandreinstatedonrehk,764F.2d 1400(11th Cir. 1985)(enbanc).Thisoccurswhenacomplaintincludesicmatlersofavoidahcethatprecludethe pleader'sability to recoverr''id ,orwhen tstheallegationsin th om plaiptsufficeto establish , ec (theqground''forthedefense,Jonesv,Bock,549U.S.199,21?(2007).Thisisnotsuchacase. Theallegationsin the Com plaintdo noton theirfaceindicate much lessestablish that Carnival'suseoftheèockswasdtincident''andûtnecessary''totclawf'ultravel''t: Cuba.lndeed, Carnival'safgumentregarding thelawfulnessofitstravelto Cubarestson a docum entwholly outsidethefourcornersoftheComjlaint:alicensepurportedlyissuedbytheOfficeofForeign AssetsControlauthorizingçom mon can-iersto engagein such selwices.SeeM ot.D ism issat13- 15.Assuch,thelawfultraveldefense8annotform thebasisfordismissalunderRuie12(b)(6).4 4 Carnivalgoeson to argue thatitsuse ofthe docks wasnecessary to law fultravel, claim ing that Ssnecessary''should be constl-ued to sim ply m ean (sim portant,helpful,orappropriate,''ratherthan 8 ' B. PlaintiffSufficiently AllegesOw nership ofthe Claim to theProperty TheHelm svBurton Actalso requirestheplaintiffto show thatheisownstheclaim ''tothe confiscatedlroperty.Sèej6082(a)(1)(A).InitsMotiontoDismiss,Carnivalarguestl/tthe ! . Complaintisfatally tlawed becqusethecertified claim attachedtp the Complainlisnotin Plaintiff'sname,andthereareno allekationsshowing thatPlaintiffownsthatclaim . The Courtrespectfully disagrees.TheComplaintadequately allegesthatPlaintiffowns an 82.5% interestin the Santiago docks,that32.5% ofthatinterestisbased upon the certified claim attached totheCqmplaint,and thattheremaining poMion ofPlaintiff sinterestishased uponanuncertifiedctaim.SeeCompl.!!10-11.In anyevent,Plaintiffsownershipofthe claim involvesfactualdeterminationsthatgo beyondthefourcornersofthe Complaint,as demonstrated by Carnivalattaciling apurported copy ofM r.Parreno'sprobated'willto show that Plaintiffdid lp tinherittheclaim .SeeM ot.Dism issat13,Ex.. A . Such factualdeterm inations are Stinappropriate in deciding a m otion tö dism iss.'' Twin C//z Fire Ins.Co.v.H artlnan,lsim ons & Wood LLP,609F.App'x 972,977(11thCir.2015). TheCourtalsodisagreeswith Calmival'sarglzmentthatPlaintiffsallejedownershipis contradicted by the certified claim attached to the Com plaint. ttW hen the exhibitsattachyd to the complaintcontradictthegeneraland conclusory allegationsofthepleading,theexhibitsgovern.'' Renk oev.NationstarMortg.,LLC,822F.3d 1241,1245(11thCir.2016)(quoting.Grl n Indust,Inc.v.Irvin,496F,3d 1189,1206(11thCir.2007))(bracketsandintelmalquotation marksomitted).Butthisrulerequiresdispissalonly(iiftheexhibitsSplainlyshow'thatthe com plaint'sallegations are untrue by providing tspecitsc factualdetails'thatiforeclose recovery essentialorindis/ensable.f#.at15-19.GiventheCourt'sholdingthatthisisanaffirmative defense thatisnotproperly considered on a m otion to dism iss,the Coul'tneed notreach the m erits ofCam ival'sargum entatthisstage. ' ' asamatterof1aw.'''Id.(quotingGrffînIndust,Inc.,496F.3dat1205-06).Here,nothingin tkecertifiedclaim attachedtgtheComplaintplainlyshowsthatPlaintiffsallegationsaretuqrue . i . SeeCoppl.Ex,A,DE 1-1at12.Theclaim isdated Septem ber16,1970, leaying ampletim lfor Plaintiffto have acquired ownership ofthe claim from M r. Parreno(orhissuccessor)priorto bringingthisaction.W iiletheComplaintdoesnotexplainwhatoccurred between 1970and today,the Courtcannotusethissilenceto'assumethatPlaintiffdidnotacquiretheclaim during . thatjeriodorthatPlaintiff'sallegationsofownership,areuntrue.SeeFw /n cit.vFireIns.Co., . ' . . 6O9F Appixat977(C:Thecomplaint'ssilenceregaidingwhatmightormightnothavehappeùed between201) and2013didnotgivethedistrictcourtlicensetoassumethatTwin Cityhadfailed totakecertain actionsduringthatperiod.''l.s In anyevent,Plaintiffalsoallegesthataportion of hisinterestisbasedonanuncertsedclaim,whichisnotcontradictedbyanyexhibits.Thus, Plaintiffadequately allegesthathe owns a claim to the consscated property and those allegations are notforeclosed by thè exhibitto the Com plaint. C. PlainfiffPlausibly Allegesa Claim to theConfiscated Property Based on Stock Ownership in La M aritim a Finally,underHelms-Burton,theplaintiffsclaim mustbeaclaim içtothe(conhscateq prtwer/y.''j6082(a)(1)(A)(emphasisadded).Citingthecorporate1aw principlethata corporation anditsstockholdersaregenerallytreated asseparate entities,Carnivalarguesthat f 5Forthisreajon,Carnival'srelianceon Brown p South Florida Fishing Extreme,Inc.,N o.08. 20678,2008W L 2597938,at*1(S.D.Fla.June27,2008)(Gold,J.),ismisplaced.Brownisa copyrightinfringem entcase w herethe plaintiffclaim ed to bé the ow ner ofcopyrighted m usic. Id at #2. In dism issipg the com plaint,the coul' texplained thatdespite the plaintiffs conclusory allegation thathe ow n'ed the copyrights atissue, theexhibitstothecomplaint(andthecertificates ofregistration from theU.S.CopyrightOffice)establishedthatthecopyrightswereownedbyan entity nam ed Seriqus M usic,Inc.,notthe plaintiff. See ftf H ere,Plaintiffhasasserted sufficient factualallegations supporting his ow nership interest,and the certified claim attached to the Com plaintm' erely reflects thatM r.Parreno owned the claim in 1970 nottoday. 10 Plaintiff'sclaim isnota(sclaim t6 the confiscated property''becauseitm erely ttconcernsstock in aCuban company,which in turn bwned thedocks.''M ot.Dism issat17.In otherwords, Carnivalcontendsth' atthisaction mustbedism issed because,asam atterofcorporate law , Plaintiffdoesnotown aCtdirectinterest''in theèonfiscated ptoperty.I6L pt 17-18. . The Courtisnotpersuaded. Based on the text,context,and purpose ofH elm s-Burton, Plaintiffplausibly allegesaclaim to theconfiscated propertybased on hisstock ownership in La V aritima.BegilmingF'iththetext,becausetheActdoesnotdefinetheterm çsclaim p''theCourt looksto the term 's ordinary m eaning atthetim e H èlm s-Burton'w aspassed. See Sumpter v. SeclpofLabor,76jF.3d1292,.1296(11thCir.2014).Basedoncontemporaryéictiohary . h . definitions,Congresswouldhaveunderstood thataclailn to confscatedproperty issubstantially ,t % broaderthan adirectinterestin such property.See,e.g.,Webster'sNew World College Dictionary 257(3ded.1996)(definingtçclaim''ast$ademand forsomethingrightfully or allegedlydue''or:$arightortitletosomething''l;Merriam-Webster'sCollegiateDictionary 210 (10th ed.1993)(definingSsclaim''has($ademandforsomethingdueorbelievedtobeduey''$1a righttosomething,''orttanassertionopentochallepge''). Similarly,thereisnoindication in thestàtute'stextthatCongressWaslegislating with colyorateformalitiesih m ind.lnstead,Congressused thebroadlyunderstood tenn Ctclaim ,'' com bined with colloquiallanguage such astheCcrightfulqwners''and SGvictim softhese confiscations''inthecongressionalfindings,jj6081(8),(11).Thiscounselsagainstusing corporate1aw toconfineHelms-Burton.C/ DoleFoodCo.p!Patrickson,538U.S.468,475 ' . (2003)(applyingcol-porate1aw principlestoFor eignSovereignlmmunitiesActbecause J Congressused language such as(tshares''and ltseparate legalperson,''indicating thatCtcongress 11 .q . * y ' had corporàteformalitiesin mind''and ttwasawarebfsettled principlesofcorporate1aw and , legislatrdwithinthatcontexf'). Thisbroaderreqding also com portswith basiccanonsofstatutory interpretatilm . One J . such canon isthatcotlrtjare(snotallowed to add orsubtractwordsfrom astatute ''Fiiendsof . ' :' . . T theEyergladesv.S.Fla.WaterMgmt.Dist,57QF.3d 1210,1224(11th Cir.2009).Indeed,Elone . . ofthemostbasicinterpretivecanond(isjthatastamtesHouldbeconstruedsothateffectisgiven to allitsprovisions,so thatno partwillbeinoperafive örsuperfluous,void orinsignificant.'' Patelv,US.Att!)FGen.,917F.3d 1319,1326h.5(11thCir.2019)(quotihgRubinv.Islamic kepublicoflran,138s.ct.j16,824(2018)).uere,however,carnival'sreadingorthestatute --' . ' 'would requiretheCoui'tto dç1etetheword çcclaim ''from the'plupseElowns' theclaim to su'ch property,''and effectively rewriteHelm s-Burtonto coveronly thoseplaintiffswho Ssown such . 3 ' 6 property.''In otherwords,Cmmivalisintepretationwouldrendertiewordtsclaim''entirely ' .. . ' . h supertluous,which also weighsheavily againstCarnival'safgllment. ) . Anotheyjcano .n of -. . t . . ' cons t r uc t i on i s t ha t r e l a t e d s t a t ut es , or s t a t ut e s i npar i p t lyrf t z , E s a r e to .' . beinterpretedtbge ther,akthoughtheywereonelaw.''SeeInreCoffman, ,766F.3d 1246? 1250 i. . . ' . ' ' (11thClr.2014)(iuotingAntoninScalia& Bryan A.Garljèr,' Readipg'L(zw. 'TheInterpretation ofLegalTexts252'53(2012)).Thus,theCourtlookstothecloselyrelatedlnternationalClaims Settlem entActof1949 foradditionalguidance.There?Congréssspecified thatSsclaim s''against thegovernmentsoi-CubaorChinamaybebasedonproperty(lownedwholly orpartially,directly : . . ' orindirectly byanationaloft0eUnitedStatesonthedateoftheloss.''22U.S.C.j 1643c(a) (e>phasisadded).Thisadded context/fnm hèrindicatesthata(sclaim''underHelms-Burtovneed notbe based on directproperty ow nership asCarnivalconten'ds,butinstead em braces indirect , ' ' . ownership asw ell. And here,Plaintiffplausibly alleges indirectow nership based on hisclaim to stock in LaM aritim a,the company thatownedthedocksbeforeitwasnationalized bythe Cuban GoyernmentinOctober1960.SeeCompl.!J!7-8,Ex.A. Finally,Cafnival'sreadingofthestatutewotlld substantially undermineCongress'sgoal . ofdeteqingtiaffcking.Seej6081(11).Indeed,underCaznival'sinterpretation,onecantraffic inaCubancorpùration'sconfiscatedpropertywithimpunityaslongastheCuban Gàvernment ' . notonly took theproperty,butalso nationalizedthecorporate entity itself, leaving only the individualshareholdeysbehindtopursueahy rightsthecorporation m ighthave lostto theCastro regim e. Atld because the A ct'appliesto confiscations dating back to January 1959, there is a strong possibility thatm any ofthese cop orationsno longerexistorare otherwise unable to assertclaim s on their ow n behalf. In fact,in this case,C arnivalarguesthatLa M aritim a isnota U .S.nationalcapable ofbringing aHelms-Burton claim fortheconfiscated docks,and according to Carnival,thatmeansno one is.TheCoul4findsitim plausiblethatCongressintended sueh a result. Iv.çoxctztrslox Accordingly,itisORDERED,ADJUDGED,AND DECREED thatDefendantCalmival Corporation'sM otiontoDismiss(DE 14)be,andthesameherebyis,bENIED.Defendant shallfileitsAnswertotheComplaintwithintwenty(20)daysfrom ihedateofthisOrder. D O NE A ND O R D ERE D in Cham bersatthe Jam es Law rence K ing FederalJustice Building and U nited StatesCourthouse,M iam i,Florida,this 26th day ofA ugust,2019. % A M ES LA CE K IN G UN ITED 8TATES DISTRICT J D CC* A11counselofrecord 13
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
