De Fernandez v. The French Line
| Docket Number | 21-CV-22778-RAR |
| Decision Date | 20 July 2023 |
| Parties | ODETTE BLANCO DE FERNANDEZ nee BLANCO ROSELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE FRENCH LINE, (a/k/a CMA CGM GROUP), et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS
This case presents a fact pattern increasingly familiar to American courts: the story of Cuban nationals who, following the Cuban Revolution, had their property confiscated and their lives upended. In the wake of this upheaval, many of these nationals fled Cuba and found a new home in the United States, eventually becoming citizens of this country. These now-American citizens were provided a hopeful remedy in 1996 with the passage of the Helms-Burton Act, 22 U.S.C. § 6021 et seq., which sought to compensate them for their confiscated property. As explained below, that remedy was effectively a dead letter until 2019. Some of those who originally fled Cuba, like most of the original owners of the property subject to this litigation, died before they could bring a claim. But with the Helms-Burton Act's civil remedy now available, plaintiffs have vigorously pursued the remedy they were promised nearly three decades ago.
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Melissa Damian's Report and Recommendation (“Report”), [ECF No. 138], filed on April 30 2023. The Report recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants' Combined Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss” or “MTD”), [ECF No. 72], and deny Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Ruling on Collateral Estoppel (“Motion to Stay”), [ECF No. 119].[1] See Report at 1-2. The Court, having reviewed the Report, the Motion to Dismiss, the Motion to Stay, the record, and being otherwise fully advised, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report, [ECF No. 138], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED as set forth herein.
At this stage, the Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts of this case but will summarize the most pertinent allegations and procedural history.
Following the regime change imposed by Fidel Castro in Cuba, the government “ban[ned] [] free and fair democratic elections,” perpetuated “violations of fundamental human rights,” and continually oppressed the Cuban people through a variety of mechanisms, including confiscation of their property. 22 U.S.C. §§ 6021(2), (4), (15). As alleged in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Odette Blanco de Fernandez nee Blanco Rosell (“Ms. Fernandez”), and her siblings Alfredo Blanco Rosell, Florentino Blanco Rosell, Enrique Blanco Rosell, and Byron Blanco Rosell (the “Blanco Rosell Siblings”) were victims of these confiscations. See Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 65] ¶¶ 2-4. Shortly after the government rose to power, it confiscated all “property and rights, whatever their nature” from the Blanco Rosell Siblings other than property considered “strictly of a personal nature.” Am. Compl. ¶ 2. To effectuate the confiscation of the Blanco Rosell Siblings' property, the Cuban government published Resolution No. 436 in the Cuban Official Gazette on September 29, 1960, which identified both the Blanco Rosell Siblings and their property. Id. None of the Blanco Rosell Siblings were citizens of the United States when the Cuban government seized their property. Am. Compl. ¶ 5. After their property was confiscated, the Blanco Rosell Siblings fled Cuba, settled in the United States, and became United States citizens prior to March 12, 1996. Id. Ms. Fernandez, who is 92, is now the only surviving Blanco Rosell Sibling. Id.
The Cuban government confiscated two groups of property from the Blanco Rosell Siblings relevant to this action. The first consisted of a “70-Year Concession” the Cuban government previously granted to Maritima Mariel SA (“Maritima Mariel”), a Cuban corporation the Blanco Rosell Siblings equally owned. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 83-86. Granted on August 15, 1955, the 70-Year Concession allegedly allowed Maritima Mariel to “plan, study, execute, maintain, and exploit public docks and warehouses in the Bay of Mariel Bay, province of Pinar del Rio Province, and the construction of new buildings and works.” Am. Compl. ¶ 86. The 70-Year Concession also granted Maritima Mariel several “exceptional rights in the Bay of Mariel” enumerated in the Amended Complaint. Am. Compl. ¶ 87. Plaintiffs allege this 70-Year Concession “extend[ed] to all of Mariel Bay.” Am. Compl. ¶ 110. Both Maritima Mariel and the 70-Year Concession were subsequently confiscated by the Cuban government. Am. Compl. ¶ 89.
The second group of property relates to “several other companies” and land holdings the Blanco Rosell Siblings owned, including Compañía Azucarera Mariel S.A. (“Azucarera Mariel”). Am. Compl. ¶ 90. Azucarera Mariel owned and operated a sugar mill known as “Central San Ramon,” which the Blanco Rosell Siblings bought along with approximately 11,000 acres of land located “southeast, south and west of Mariel Bay,” that included “numerous improvements such as roads, railways, buildings, and utilities.” Id. The Blanco Rosell Siblings also owned a farm known as “Tapia” located on the west side of Mariel Bay. Am. Compl. ¶ 93. The Cuban government confiscated all of this property. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 92-93. Eventually, the Cuban government incorporated the Blanco Rosell Siblings' confiscated property into the Zona Especial de Desarrollo Mariel (Mariel Special Development Zone) (“ZEDM”), a “special economic zone in Cuba with its own legal structure.” Am. Compl. ¶¶ 104, 107-08. Located within the ZEDM is the Terminal de Contenedores del Mariel (Container Terminal of Mariel) (“TCM”), a “[c]ontainer [t]erminal” that “is part of the Port of Mariel” and “within the Bay of Mariel.” Am. Compl. ¶ 33.
The story of the Blanco Rosell Siblings is far from unique. “[M]illions of [Cuban] citizens,” “thousands of United States nationals,” and “thousands more Cubans” who arrived in the United States and “later became naturalized citizens of the United States” had their property confiscated in the midst of the Cuban government “trampl[ing] on the fundamental rights of the Cuban people.” 22 U.S.C. § 6081(3). In response, Congress passed the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996, known as the LIBERTAD or Helms-Burton Act (also referred to as “the Act”). See Am. Compl. ¶ 1. The Helms-Burton Act was passed to ensure that “the victims of [the Cuban government's] confiscations . . . [were] endowed with a judicial remedy in the courts of the United States” to deny “traffickers [in the confiscated property] any profits from economically exploiting Castro's wrongful seizures.” 22 U.S.C. § 6081(11). To achieve this end, the Act provides that “any person that . . . traffics in property which was confiscated by the Cuban Government on or after January 1, 1959, shall be liable to any United States national who owns the claim to such property.” Id. § 6082(a)(1)(A).
But the promise that the Helms-Burton Act would provide a civil remedy to those who had their property taken went unrealized for decades. The Act allows the President of the United States to “suspend the right to bring an action under [§ 6082] with respect to confiscated property for a period of not more than 6 months if the President determines . . . that such suspension is necessary to the national interests of the United States and will expedite a transition to democracy in Cuba.” 22 U.S.C. § 6085(c)(1)(B). After the Helms-Burton Act was passed and signed into law, every President proceeded to suspend the right to bring claims under § 6082 every six months until May 2, 2019, when, for the first time, the Helms-Burton Act's civil remedy finally became available. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 65-66.
Plaintiffs then instituted this action against Defendants CMA CGM S.A. (“CMA France”) and CMA CGM (AMERICA) LLC (“CMA America”), two companies engaged in international maritime transportation. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 26, 39. As accurately reflected in the Report, CMA France and CMA America have done business in Florida and Cuba, including the parts of Mariel Bay encompassing the ZEDM and TCM as well as the surrounding areas that allegedly include the Blanco Rosell Siblings' confiscated property. See Report at 4-6. Plaintiffs accordingly allege that Defendants are trafficking in the Blanco Rosell Siblings' confiscated property in violation of the Helms-Burton Act. Id. As Ms. Fernandez is the only surviving Blanco Rosell Sibling, the remaining claims in this action are asserted by either (1) the personal representatives of the deceased Blanco Rosell Siblings' estates (the “Estate Plaintiffs”); and (2) those who inherited the deceased Blanco Rosell Siblings' interests in the properties (the “Inheritor Plaintiffs”). Am. Compl. ¶¶ 8-25.
Plaintiffs have not only pursued claims against CMA France and CMA America-they have also filed a number of cases alleging violations of § 6082 of the Act. See MTD at 6 n.4 (collecting cases). Among these other actions is De Fernandez v. Seaboard Marine, Ltd., No. 20-25176 (S.D. Fla.), where Plaintiffs also pursued claims based on the 70-Year Concession. See Report at 33. The Seaboard Marine court made two rulings relevant to the instant action. First, it dismissed the claims of the Estate and Inheritor Plaintiffs, holding that none of these plaintiffs acquired their claims before the statutory cutoff of March 12, 1996. De Fernandez v. Seaboard Marine, Ltd., No. 20-25176, 2021 WL 3173213, at *8-9 (S.D. Fla. July 27, 2021).
Then at the summary judgment stage, the court found the geographic scope of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial