683 F.Supp.3d 1309
S.D. Fla.2023Background
- The Blanco Rosell siblings (including Odette Blanco de Fernandez, now the sole surviving sibling) allege the Cuban government confiscated family property after 1959, including a 70-Year Concession for Mariel Bay and land/companies (e.g., Azucarera Mariel) later incorporated into the Mariel Special Development Zone (ZEDM) and the Terminal de Contenedores del Mariel (TCM).
- The Helms-Burton Act (22 U.S.C. § 6021 et seq.) creates a private right of action against persons who "traffic" in property confiscated by the Cuban government and was effectively actionable beginning May 2, 2019 after repeated presidential suspensions ended.
- Plaintiffs sued CMA CGM S.A. (CMA France) and CMA CGM (America) LLC alleging trafficking in the confiscated property under § 6082; defendants moved to dismiss on multiple grounds and sought collateral estoppel as to the 70-Year Concession.
- Magistrate Judge Damian issued a Report & Recommendation largely recommending denial of dismissal on many grounds; the district court adopted the Report, denied dismissal as to CMA France personal jurisdiction, but granted dismissal of most plaintiffs and all claims based on the 70-Year Concession.
- The court dismissed all claims except those of Odette Blanco de Fernandez: (1) Inheritor and Estate Plaintiffs dismissed with prejudice because they acquired their claims after the statutory cutoff of March 12, 1996; and (2) any remaining claims premised on the 70-Year Concession dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over CMA France | Plaintiffs assert CMA France has sufficient contacts with Florida/Cuba to be haled into court | CMA France contends lack of personal jurisdiction | Court finds personal jurisdiction exists (no clear error) |
| Timeliness / "acquires" before 3/12/1996 (Inheritor & Estate Plaintiffs) | Inheritors/estates can pursue claims deriving from original owners | Claims must have been acquired before March 12, 1996 per § 6082(a)(4)(B) | Dismissed: inheritance and estate claims acquired after cutoff cannot proceed |
| Must plaintiff have been a U.S. national at time of confiscation? | Plaintiffs: Helms-Burton protects U.S. nationals who later became citizens after confiscation | Defendants: plaintiffs must have been U.S. nationals at time of the taking | Court: statute’s plain text covers "any United States national"; citizenship at time of suit suffices; claim survives this challenge |
| Shareholder/indirect ownership suffices? | Shareholders owning through entities retained a "claim" and can sue | Defendants: only direct owners may bring § 6082 claims; corporate form limits standing | Court: indirect/shareholder ownership can constitute a "claim to" confiscated property; claim may proceed |
| Must confiscation be "wrongful" under international law? | Plaintiffs: statutory language requires only that property was confiscated by Cuba after 1959 | Defendants: must be wrongful under international law (domestic takings rule) | Court: statute’s definition of "confiscated" contains no international-law requirement; no such pleading required |
| Collateral estoppel as to 70-Year Concession scope | Plaintiffs: R&R misapplies preclusion; appeal/settlement may affect preclusive effect | Defendants: Seaboard Marine judgment precludes relitigation of concession’s geographic scope | Court: applies preclusion — claims based on 70-Year Concession dismissed; motion to stay moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard: plausibility required)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions not accepted as true on a motion to dismiss)
- Garcia-Bengochea v. Carnival Corp., 57 F.4th 916 (11th Cir. 2023) (interpretation of "acquires" and scope of Helms-Burton claims)
- Glen v. Club Mediterranee, S.A., 450 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2006) (discussed in dicta regarding nationality at time of expropriation)
- Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468 (2003) (statutory interpretation in light of corporate form principles)
- United States v. Powell, 628 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2010) (de novo review standard for magistrate judge reports)
- Van Buren v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1648 (2021) (follow explicit statutory definitions)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (prefatory findings do not limit operative statutory text)