407 F.Supp.3d 1281
S.D. Fla.2019Background
- Plaintiff Javier Garcia-Bengochea sued Carnival under Title III of the Helms-Burton Act alleging Carnival "trafficked" in Cuban property (Santiago de Cuba waterfront docks) confiscated in 1960, seeking money damages. Title III became effective May 2, 2019 after the U.S. ceased suspending it.
- Plaintiff alleges an 82.5% interest in the subject property: 32.5% based on a certified Foreign Claims Settlement Commission claim (attached to the complaint) and the remainder based on an uncertified claim.
- Carnival moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing (1) the "lawful travel" exception to trafficking bars the claim; (2) the certified claim attached to the complaint is not in Plaintiff’s name (it was held by Albert J. Parreno in 1970), so Plaintiff lacks standing; and (3) Plaintiff’s asserted interest is only stock in La Maritima (the pre‑nationalization corporate owner), not a direct property interest, so it is not a "claim to such property."
- Plaintiff responded that the lawful travel provision is an affirmative defense (so need not be negated in the complaint) and that he sufficiently alleged ownership of a claim (claim-specific ownership, not direct title to real property).
- The court heard argument and denied Carnival’s motion to dismiss, holding (inter alia) that the lawful travel provision is an affirmative defense for the defendant to prove, that Plaintiff adequately pleaded ownership of a claim for pleading-stage purposes, and that an ownership claim based on stock in a pre‑nationalization corporation can plausibly be a "claim to the confiscated property."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the "lawful travel" provision must be negated in the complaint or is an affirmative defense | Garcia-Bengochea: lawful travel is an affirmative defense; plaintiff need not plead around it | Carnival: plaintiff must plead that use of the docks was not incident/necessary to lawful travel; otherwise dismissal | The court: lawful travel is an affirmative defense that Carnival must prove; plaintiff need not negate it at pleading stage; dismissal improper on that ground |
| Whether Plaintiff adequately alleges ownership of a claim to the confiscated property when the attached certified claim is not in his name | Garcia-Bengochea: Helms-Burton requires ownership of a "claim", not ownership of property; complaint sufficiently alleges 82.5% interest including a certified and uncertified claim | Carnival: the certified claim exhibit shows it belongs to Parreno, contradicting plaintiff's ownership allegation and requiring dismissal | The court: allegations plausibly state ownership of a claim; the exhibit does not plainly foreclose Plaintiff’s allegation and factual disputes are inappropriate to resolve on 12(b)(6) |
| Whether a claim based on stock ownership in a pre‑nationalization corporation satisfies Helms‑Burton’s "claim to such property" requirement | Garcia-Bengochea: a "claim" is broader than direct title and includes indirect interests such as stock ownership | Carnival: corporate separateness means stockholders do not own a direct claim to corporate property; thus the complaint fails | The court: "claim" can include indirect ownership; stock ownership in La Maritima plausibly constitutes a claim to the confiscated docks; dismissal on this theory denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; draw reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor)
- Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab., 554 U.S. 84 (burden on defendant for affirmative defenses tied to statutory exemptions)
- Thomas v. George, Hartz, Lundeen, Fulmer, Johnstone, King, and Stevens, P.A., 525 F.3d 1107 (11th Cir.) (analysis of statutory permitted uses and who bears burden to plead/negate)
- Quiller v. Barclays Am./Credit, Inc., 727 F.2d 1067 (affirmative defenses justify dismissal only if they clearly appear on the face of the complaint)
- Renfroe v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 822 F.3d 1241 (exhibits attached to complaint govern when they plainly contradict allegations)
- Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468 (statutory interpretation where corporate formalities are implicated)