Plaintiffs In Libertad Act Lawsuit To Defendant Amazon- Recognize Inheritance & Congressional Intent

DANIEL A. GONZALEZ VS. AMAZON.COM, INC., AND SUSSHI INTERNATIONAL, INC., D/B/A/ FOGO CHARCOAL [1:19-cv-23988; Southern Florida District]

Cueto Law Group, P.L. (plaintiff)
Wicker Smith O’Hara McCoy & Ford (defendant- Susshi International)
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius (defendant- Amazon)

LINK To Plaintiff’s Response In Opposition To Defendant Amazon’s Motion To Dismiss The Amended Complaint (5/1/20)

Excerpt From Text:

A. Section 6082(a)(4)(B) Does Not Bar Plaintiff’s Inheritance of a Title III Claim After March 12, 1996.

"For its argument, Amazon asserts that, pursuant to 6082(a)(4)(B), Plaintiff must have acquired his claim prior to March 12, 1996. This issue, however, is not as simple as Amazon suggests. Amazon’s interpretation requires the Court to review selected words in Title III in a vacuum, without consideration of the Act as a whole and the context and purpose of the law. Indeed, as used in section 6082(a)(4)(B), the term “acquires” is ambiguous with respect to its application to transfers of claims by operation of law, e.g. inherited claims. And the context of Title III confirms that section 6082(a)(4)(B) was not intended to bar recovery on inherited claims. In contrast, the statutory interpretation advanced by Amazon is incompatible with the text and purpose of the Act, as well as its congressional intent. Under Amazon’s theory, individual claimants—the overwhelming majority of claim owners—will be barred from recovering under the Act. Tethering the enforceability of Title III to the death of original claim holders, as Amazon urges this Court to do, would render the cause of action a nullity—a result strongly disfavored under Eleventh Circuit and Supreme Court precedent. See United States v. Atl. Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128, 137 (2007); Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049, 1061 (11th Cir. 2003).”