135 F.4th 939
11th Cir.2025Background
- The Helms-Burton Act (Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act) provides U.S. nationals a private right of action against persons trafficking in property confiscated by the Cuban government after 1959.
- Odette Blanco de Fernandez and relatives alleged that Seaboard Marine trafficked in confiscated property by using a container terminal partly on land taken from the family’s companies, Azucarera Mariel and Maritima Mariel.
- Fernandez’s claims were based on alleged real estate and concessionary rights previously held by her family companies in Mariel Bay, Cuba, which the Castro regime later confiscated.
- The district court dismissed claims of family heirs/estates (as their rights accrued after the Act’s cutoff), but allowed Fernandez’s personal claim to proceed, later granting summary judgment to Seaboard on all claims.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part: upholding the dismissal of heirs’/estates’ claims and Fernandez's claims regarding Maritima, but allowing Fernandez’s claim regarding Azucarera’s land to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether heirs/estates can sue under Helms-Burton Act | Heirs/estates should be allowed as their decedents owned claims pre-cutoff | Never acquired claims before cutoff date | Dismissed: Heirs/estates cannot sue if claims acquired post-cutoff |
| Whether shareholder has a claim for property confiscated | Shareholder has a "claim to" property under Act | Only direct owners (companies) have claims | Shareholders can assert claims as they had an interest |
| Whether Maritima’s concession right was exclusive | 1955 decree gave exclusive port facility rights (thus, trafficking claim) | The concession was non-exclusive, limited in scope | No exclusive right; no trafficking by Seaboard re: Maritima |
| Whether Seaboard trafficked in Azucarera-confiscated land | Seaboard used/built on confiscated land, benefitting from it | No evidence use/benefit was tied to confiscated property | Sufficient evidence to proceed on this trafficking claim |
| Lawful travel exception applies to commercial shipments | Seaboard’s activities not exempted as simple “travel” | Exception applies to shipments incident to lawful travel | Exception inapplicable; transporting goods is not “lawful travel” |
| Sufficiency of damages evidence | Expert reports adequately estimate damages | Damages estimates are flawed | Genuine factual dispute on damages; summary judgment denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Glen v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 7 F.4th 331 (5th Cir. 2021) (defining "acquires" for statutory bar under Helms-Burton)
- Garcia-Bengochea v. Carnival Corp., 57 F.4th 916 (11th Cir. 2023) (heirs/acquirers post-cutoff barred by statute)
- Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 119 F.4th 1276 (11th Cir. 2024) (scope of concessionary rights under Helms-Burton)
- United States v. Rice, 671 F.2d 455 (11th Cir. 1982) (statutory construction principles)
- Legal Env’t Assistance Found., Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., 276 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2001) (statutory construction requires giving effect to all words)
- Bayshore Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 380 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2004) (contract ambiguity and interpretation)