Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Appellate newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360 (May 5, 2020, 6:22 PM EDT) -- Stressing that the COVID-19 pandemic has turned the cruise industry upside down, four cruise lines facing separate suits alleging that they trafficked in confiscated Cuban waterfront property are urging a Florida federal court to grant 90-day stays.
Facing no-sail orders, lockdowns and limited resources and staff, Royal Caribbean Cruise Ltd, Carnival Corp., Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. and MSC Cruises SA said the thorough discovery sought by former port owner Havana Docks Corp. would be burdensome, according to the motions for stay.
"The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an unprecedented disruption to the cruise line industry and the lives and working conditions of these companies' employees, even beyond the massive impact on the general public," Carnival said in its motion for stay of discovery.
The stays would allow some reprieve to cope with financial and logistical challenges to gathering discovery, the cruise line said. Stay-at-home orders in Miami-Dade County, where it is headquartered, make discovery "infeasible," with documents difficult or impossible to access, the company said.
Royal Caribbean said it laid off or furloughed 26% of its U.S.-based employees last month due to the economic hit it has taken during the pandemic. Layoffs included some people from whom discovery information would need to be obtained and the company's in-house counsel is "being pressed to deal with the emerging and emergency COVID-caused issues that are arising daily," the cruise line said.
Discovery in the case MSC Cruises faces would be "wide-ranging, complex and will likely be expensive and protracted," the company said, adding, "MSC Cruises should be able to respond to and engage in discovery when it has the ability to adequately focus its energies on this litigation."
Stays are also appropriate, the cruise lines said, given their pursuit of interlocutory appeals of the court's recent orders that pulled them back into their cases after U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom held that she had previously "too narrowly" construed the liability provision of Title III of the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, also known as the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act.
Havana Docks Corp. seeks to hold the cruise lines liable for money damages under Title III of the act for supposedly sending ships to commercial waterfront property in the Port of Havana, now known as the Havana Cruise Port Terminal. The company says it owned the property until the Cuban government confiscated it in 1960.
Norwegian's motion first asks for a stay of proceedings pending resolution of the appeals process, citing COVID-19 challenges in the alternative.
The cruise lines are seeking Eleventh Circuit review of what Norwegian called a "threshold legal question in this and these other cases." Each company filed motions for certification of interlocutory appeal in the district court last month. The question relates to the scope of liability that Title III of the Helms-Burton Act creates for trafficking in confiscated property.
A stay "would avoid the parties and the court expending resources on a case whose trajectory may ultimately be diverted by additional input from the Eleventh Circuit," Norwegian said.
"We will soon be filing in court our oppositions explaining why the relief they are requesting should be denied," Roberto Martinez of Colson Hicks Eidson PA, who is representing Havana Docks Corp., told Law360 Tuesday.
Counsel for MSC Cruises declined to comment. Representatives for Carnival, Royal Caribbean and Norwegian did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Havana Docks is represented by Roberto Martínez, Stephanie A. Casey, Zachary A. Lipshultz and Aziza F. Elayan-Martinez of Colson Hicks Eidson PA; and Rodney S. Margol of Margol & Margol PA.
Royal Caribbean is represented by Scott D. Ponce and Sanford L. Bohrer of Holland & Knight LLP.
MSC is represented by J. Douglas Baldridge, Andrew T. Hernacki and Justin B. Nemeroff of Venable LLP.
Norwegian is represented by Richard C. Lorenzo and Allen P. Pegg of Hogan Lovells.
Carnival is represented by Stuart H. Singer, Evan Ezray and Johnathan Lott of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP; Pedro A. Freyre of Akerman LLP; and George J. Fowler III of Jones Walker LLP.
The cases are Havana Docks Corp. v. Carnival Corp., case number 1:19-cv-21724, Havana Docks Corp. v. MSC Cruises SA Co., case number 1:19-cv-23588, Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., case number 1:19-cv-23590, and Havana Docks Corp. v. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd., case number 1:19-cv-23591, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
--Additional reporting by Joyce Hanson. Editing by Peter Rozovsky.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
