119 F.4th 1276
11th Cir.2024Background
- Title III of the Helms-Burton Act allows U.S. nationals to sue for trafficking in property confiscated by the Cuban government after January 1, 1959.
- Havana Docks, a U.S.-incorporated entity, held a 99-year usufructuary concession (not fee simple) to operate docks at the Port of Havana, set to expire in 2004; this was confiscated by Cuba in 1960.
- The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission certified Havana Docks' claim for the value of the concession and tangible assets, but Cuba did not pay compensation.
- In recent years, major cruise lines (Royal Caribbean, Norwegian, Carnival, MSC) used the Havana Cruise Port Terminal (2016-2019), leading to Havana Docks' Title III lawsuits for over $100 million against each cruise line.
- The district court initially ruled in favor of Havana Docks, but the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether Havana Docks' property interest existed at the time of the alleged trafficking.
- The Circuit held that since the usufructuary concession would have expired in 2004, there was no property interest to be trafficked during the cruises from 2016-2019; summary judgment for Havana Docks was set aside and remanded for claims involving earlier periods.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Havana Docks is a "U.S. national" under Title III | Havana Docks is a U.S. national (Delaware corporation with principal business in U.S.) | Havana Docks is not a U.S. national since key decisions executed from London | Havana Docks is a U.S. national: nerve center is in Kentucky |
| Whether Havana Docks has an enforceable property interest post-2004 | Certified claim allows actions for trafficking as long as claim exists | Only actual property interest at time of trafficking matters; concession expired in 2004 | No enforceable property interest after 2004 for trafficking claims |
| Effect of time-limited concession on Title III rights | Confiscation converted interest into a lasting claim enforceable under the Act | Congress did not intend to turn time-limited concessions into perpetual rights | Temporally-limited property rights end when they would have expired absent confiscation |
| Scope of "trafficking" under Title III | Trafficking encompasses using any property once confiscated | Must be trafficking in property interest that exists (would exist but for confiscation) | Trafficking must be in the specific property interest as it would have existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (Supreme Court adopted the "nerve center" test to determine a corporation's principal place of business)
- Glen v. Club Mediterranee S.A., 450 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2006) (expropriation extinguishes property rights, leaving only claims for compensation)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (summary judgment standard: evidence viewed in light most favorable to non-movant)
- United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274 (Supreme Court explained the 'bundle of sticks' nature of property rights)
- Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Plan. Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (interests in real property defined both by location and duration)