Canto Marti v. Iberostar Hoteles Y Apartamentos SL
1:20-cv-20078
| S.D. Fla. | Jan 17, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs, all U.S. citizens, allege that Defendants Iberostar and Marcaribe trafficked in Cuban property (Hotel Imperial and La Francia department store) that was confiscated by the Cuban government in 1961.
- Plaintiffs claim inheritance of their interest in the property before March 12, 1996, as required by the Helms-Burton Act, and allege Defendants participated in operating, marketing, and selling bookings for the hotels after confiscation.
- The operative complaint is the Fourth Amended Complaint, asserting claims under the Helms-Burton Act, 22 U.S.C. §§ 6021 et seq.
- Defendants are foreign companies—Marcaribe is wholly owned by Iberostar—that executed agreements with Cuban and other affiliated entities to manage and advertise the hotel, including to U.S. and Florida residents, through online platforms.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper service, statute of limitations, improper amendment, and failure to state a claim.
- The Court denied Defendants' motions, finding personal jurisdiction, proper service, timeliness, proper complaint amendment, and adequate pleading of Helms-Burton claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal Jurisdiction | Defendants’ U.S. contacts (through subsidiaries and online bookings in FL) justify PJ | No direct Florida-focused actions; subsidiaries’ and agents’ contacts should not be imputed | PJ exists based on imputed contacts and web-based bookings in FL |
| Proper Service | Service valid under Rule 4(f)(3) per alternative court-ordered means (email to counsel) | Email service not accepted by Spain’s authority, so improper | Service was proper per court order |
| Statute of Limitations | Claims are timely, previously ruled not time-barred | Claims are time-barred | Claims are not time-barred |
| Proper Amendment | Complaint was amended as of right to add/clarify real parties in interest | Improper to amend by replacing plaintiffs and adding new facts where original plaintiff lacked standing | Amendment allowed as per Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(3) and prior court orders |
| Failure to State a Claim | Pled sufficient facts to show timely inheritance, U.S. citizenship, ownership, and notice | Plaintiffs did not show proper ownership or notice; lack standing; no knowing/intentional trafficking alleged | Sufficient allegations to state claim |
Key Cases Cited
- United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2009) (outlines prima facie case for personal jurisdiction)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (motion to dismiss standard for plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (standards for pleading under Rule 8)
- Fraser v. Smith, 594 F.3d 842 (11th Cir. 2010) (federal courts’ exercise of personal jurisdiction in FL)
- Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2013) (website activity for FL jurisdiction)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351 (2021) (specific personal jurisdiction test)