Havana Docks Corp. v. Carnival Corp.

• Decision Date: 30 December 2022
• Docket Number: 19-cv-23591 BLOOM/MCALILEY,19-cv-21724 BLOOM/MCALILEY,19-cv-23588 BLOOM/LOUIS,19-cv-23590 BLOOM/LOUIS
• Parties: HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, Defendant. HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. MSC CRUISES SA, MSC CRUISES SA CO, and MSC CRUISES USA INC., Defendants. HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., Defendant. HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE HOLDINGS, LTD., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
CARNIVAL CORPORATION, Defendant.

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
MSC CRUISES SA, MSC CRUISES SA CO, and MSC CRUISES USA INC., Defendants.

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., Defendant.

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE HOLDINGS, LTD., Defendant.

Nos. 19-cv-23591 BLOOM/MCALILEY, 19-cv-21724 BLOOM/MCALILEY, 19-cv-23588 BLOOM/LOUIS, 19-cv-23590 BLOOM/LOUIS

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

December 30, 2022

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

BETH BLOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

1

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Havana Docks Corporation's (“Plaintiff” or “Havana Docks”) Motion for Entry of Final Judgment, ECF No. [444] (“Motion”). Defendants filed a Response, ECF No. [448], Plaintiff filed a Reply, ECF No. [449], to which Defendants filed a Sur-Reply, ECF No. [451]. The Court has carefully considered the Motion, the Response, the Reply, the Sur-Reply, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons that follow, the Motion is granted.

I. THE MOTION

The Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the facts and procedural history in these cases. Havana Docks has elected to calculate the amount of its damages based on the amount of its certified claim plus interest, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1)(A)(i)(I).

In the Motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter final judgment based on the amount of its certified claim of $9,179,700.88. In its Order on Defendants' Motion to Confirm Interest Calculation Pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1)(B), ECF No. [428] (“Interest Order”), the Court determined that the applicable rate of interest is the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield for each week over the period between the date of confiscation and the date Plaintiff brought each of these cases against each Defendant, and that the interest is simple, not compound. See ECF No. [428] at 9-11. Based upon the Interest Order, Plaintiff proposes the following interest amounts for each Defendant:

Defendant	Certified Claim	Interest	Total
Carnival	$9,179,700.88	$27,377,359.42	$36,557,060.30
MSC Cruises	$9,179,700.88	$27,436,548.41	$36,616,249.29
Royal Caribbean	$9,179,700.88	$27,436,548.41	$36,616,249.29
Norwegian	$9,179,700.88	$27,436,548.41	$36,616,249. 29

2

In addition, because Plaintiff has a certified claim, it is entitled to treble damages pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(3)(A), (C). Accordingly, Defendants are liable for the total amounts set forth below:

Defendant	Certified Claim + Interest	Total Damages (after trebling)
Carnival	$36,557,060.30	$109,671,180.90
MSC Cruises	$36,616,249.29	$109,848,747.87
Royal Caribbean	$36,616,249.29	$109,848,747.87
Norwegian	$36,616,249.29	$109,848,747.87

Finally, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff is also entitled to court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. The parties have agreed with respect to the amounts of fees and costs to be awarded to Plaintiff up to and including September 30, 2022, see ECF No. [447], as follows:

Defendant	Costs	Attorneys' Fees	Total
Carnival	$223,766.78	$3,464,764.69	$3,688,531.47
MSC Cruises	$245,951.11	$2,398,015.65	$2,643,966.76
Royal Caribbean	$233,974.67	$2,062,935.80	$2,296,910.47
Norwegian	$261,002.00	$2,817,073.61	$3,078,075.61

II. DEFENDANTS' ARGUMENTS

Defendants raise three arguments in response to Plaintiff's Motion and request for entry of judgment in the proposed amounts.^[1] First, Defendants argue that the full amount of the certified

3

claim should not set the floor for Plaintiff's recovery because the certified claim includes items in which Defendants did not traffic. Second, Defendants argue that Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to assert its claims. Third, Defendants argue that the damages Plaintiff seek are unconstitutionally excessive under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process clause. The Court considers each argument in turn.

A. Base Amount for Damages

Defendants argue that Plaintiff improperly seeks judgment on the entire value of the claim certified by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (“FCSC”), which includes items that are not related to the property in which the Court determined that Defendants trafficked. Specifically, Defendants argue that, in addition to the “Concession and tangible assets” of Plaintiff in which Defendants trafficked, the certified claim contains three additional line items including “Securities,” “Accounts receivable,” and “Debt of Cuban Government,” in which Defendants did not traffic. Defendants argue further that the language of Title III ties the damages for trafficking in confiscated property to the value of the certified claim for “such” property. According to Defendants, Title III specifically contemplates this scenario, given that Title III provides that Courts may award damages for amounts less than the certified claim.

Plaintiff responds that pursuant to the plain language of Title III, Plaintiff is entitled to damages calculated on the full amount of the certified claim.

Upon review, the Court agrees with Plaintiff. With any question of statutory interpretation, the Court presumes that Congress “says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” Conn. Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 254 (1992) (citing United States v. Ron Pair Enterps., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241-42 (1989)) (further citations omitted). “The first rule in statutory construction is to determine whether the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous

4

meaning with regard to the particular dispute. If the statute's meaning is plain and unambiguous, there is no need for further inquiry.” United...