455 F.Supp.3d 1355
S.D. Fla.2020Background
- Havana Docks, a U.S. national, holds an FCSC-certified claim for losses from Cuba’s 1960 confiscation of the Havana Cruise Port Terminal (the Certified Claim).
- The FCSC certification lists multiple seized interests (concession/leasehold, fixtures, equipment) and notes the concession’s terms "were to expire in the year 2004."
- Havana Docks sued MSC under Title III of the LIBERTAD (Helms-Burton) Act, alleging MSC knowingly trafficked in the confiscated Subject Property by using the terminal beginning in late 2018.
- MSC moved to dismiss, arguing the Certified Claim reflected only a time-limited concession that expired in 2004, so trafficking after that date cannot give rise to relief.
- The Court initially dismissed Havana Docks’ complaint with prejudice, but Havana Docks moved for reconsideration and to amend; the Court later concluded it had made factual and legal errors.
- The Court vacated its dismissal, found good cause to allow amendment, and ordered Havana Docks to refile an amended complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Certified Claim is time‑limited to a concession that expired in 2004 | Certified Claim (and concession) is not time‑limited; concession is a 99‑year lease cut short by confiscation; Certified Claim includes non‑temporal indemnity and other interests | Certified Claim shows a concession that expired in 2004; plaintiff cannot sue for trafficking occurring after expiration | Court found its prior factual finding (concession expired in 2004) was erroneous, accepted plaintiff’s showing of broader interests, and vacated the dismissal |
| Scope of Title III liability — must trafficking be limited to the claimant’s specific pre‑confiscation interest? | Title III’s definition of "property" and "traffics" is broad; liability attaches for trafficking in confiscated property and a claimant with a certified claim may sue for trafficking even after confiscation | Liability should be confined to trafficking in the claimant’s specific interest at the time of confiscation to avoid awarding more than the certified compensation | Court held its prior narrow statutory reading was incorrect: Title III targets trafficking in confiscated property broadly; the certified claim fixes the recovery amount, not the temporal scope of liability |
| Futility and timeliness of amendment after dismissal | Repleading will cure pleading defects; Havana Docks reasonably relied on earlier Carnival ruling and should be allowed to amend | Amendments are untimely, available facts were known earlier, and amendment would be futile because of the timing defect | Court found good cause and that amendment would not be futile; granted reconsideration and leave to amend |
| Whether the court improperly engaged in factfinding on Rule 12(b)(6) motion | Court failed to accept well‑pleaded allegations as true and made impermissible factual findings about the nature/duration of the concession | Facts were available earlier and plaintiff could have pleaded more precisely before dismissal | Court agreed it engaged in improper factfinding in the prior order, corrected that error, and vacated the dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Glen v. Club Mediterranee S.A., 450 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2006) (treats post‑confiscation interest as a "claim to such property" and explains Title III claims are actions on that certified claim)
- Glen v. Club Mediterranee S.A., 365 F. Supp. 2d 1263 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (district court opinion explaining the effect of confiscation and the nature of a certified claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard — accept well‑pleaded allegations as true)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (Rule 15(a) — leave to amend should be freely given absent futility, undue delay, or prejudice)
- Havana Club Holding S.A. v. Galleon S.A., 203 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2000) (discusses Helms‑Burton’s purpose to deter trafficking in confiscated Cuban property)
- Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964) (recognizes sovereign power of expropriation and its effect on property rights)
- United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 323 U.S. 373 (1945) (takings compensation principles limiting recovery to the interest taken)
- Garcia‑Bengochea v. Carnival Corp., 407 F. Supp. 3d 1281 (S.D. Fla. 2019) (district court discussion of Title III claims after the lifting of the Title III waiver)