Plaintiffs In Libertad Act Lawsuit Against Booking.Com & Expedia- Check Article III Of The U.S. Constitution

MARIO DEL VALLE, ENRIQUE FALLA, MARIO ECHEVARRIA V. EXPEDIA, INC., HOTELS.COM L.P., HOTELS.COM GP, ORBITZ, LLC, BOOKING.COM B.V., BOOKING HOLDINGS INC. Initial defendants were: TRIVAGO GMBH, BOOKING.COM B.V., GRUPO HOTELERO GRAN CARIBE, CORPORACION DE COMERCIO Y TURISMO INTERNACIONAL CUBANACAN S.A., GRUPO DE TURISMO GAVIOTA S.A., RAUL DOE I-5, AND MARIELA ROE 1-5, [1:19-cv-22619; Southern Florida District]

Rivero Mestre LLP (plaintiff)
Manuel Vazquez, P.A. (plaintiff)
Scott Douglass & McConnico (defendant)
Akerman (defendant)

LINK To Plaintiff’s Omnibus Opposition To Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss (5/1/20)

Excerpt:

“In separate Motions to Dismiss, defendants Booking Holdings Inc. and Booking.com B.V. (the “Booking Entities”2), and Expedia Group, Inc., Hotels.com L.P., Hotels.com GP, LLC, and Orbitz, LLC (the “Expedia Entities”3), make two critical admissions. First, they admit that plaintiffs’ homes on Varadero Beach and Arroyo Bermejo Beach, Cuba (the “Properties”) were confiscated by the Cuban government, and they were aware of this fact while they trafficked, and benefitted from others’ trafficking, in the Properties. See Expedia MTD at 11 (The Cuban government’s “confiscation may constitute a concrete and particularized injury to individuals from whom the property was taken.”); Booking MTD at 13 (The Cuban government’s “confiscation might constitute concrete and particularized injury to the owners of the property at the time it was confiscated.”).4 Second, defendants admit that they trafficked in the Starfish Cuatro Palmas and Memories Jibacoa (the “Resorts”), which were built on the sites of the Properties.5 Expedia MTD at 1 (“Decades after the Cuban government allegedly confiscated the Properties, certain subsidiaries of Defendant Expedia Group, Inc. . . . began to offer travelers the ability to secure reservations at the Resorts through web-based systems . . . .”); Booking MTD at 1 (“Decades after the Cuban government allegedly confiscated the property at issue, defendant Booking.com B.V. . . . began to offer travelers the ability to secure reservations at hotels anywhere in the world—including at the Subject Hotels—through its web-based system.”). Nonetheless, defendants argue that plaintiffs lack “constitutional standing” to bring their claims because there is no causal connection between plaintiffs’ injuries and defendants’ trafficking. See Expedia MTD at 11-12; Booking MTD at 13-14. This is a rank mischaracterization of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, 22 U.S.C. § 6021, et. seq. (“Title III” of “the Act”), not to mention Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The express language of Title III and the operative complaint make clear that plaintiffs’ injury in this case is not the Cuban government’s theft of their Properties. Plaintiffs’ injury—indeed the sole focus of Title III and this case—is defendants’ trafficking, and benefitting from others’ trafficking, in the Properties, which these defendants have admitted.”