US Supreme Court Review Requested By Plaintiff In Cuba Libertad Act Lawsuit Against Seaboard Marine
/No. 25-283
Title: Seaboard Marine Ltd., Petitioner v. Odette Blanco De Fernandez, aka Blanco Rosell
Docketed: 11 September 2025
Lower Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Case Numbers: 22-12966
Decision Date: 14 April 2025
Rehearing Denied: 10 June 2025
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
“Title III of the Helms-Burton Act creates a right of action against businesses that traffic in property confiscated by the Cuban government. See 22 U.S.C.§§ 6023, 6082. In the decision below, the Eleventh Circuit stretched the Act’s text beyond its breaking point: the court of appeals held that shipping companies that, in accordance with federal regulations, lawfully carry agricultural commodities from the U.S. to Cuba could be traffickers, each of whom owes Respondent personally hundreds of millions of dollars, based on her theory that Cuba’s principal container terminal partially extends onto land once owned by a Cuban corporation in which she claims to be the lone surviving shareholder. The questions presented are: 1. Does the Helms-Burton Act abrograte basic corporate law and permit shareholders to maintain Title III actions based on confiscated corporate property the shareholders never personally owned? 2. Does delivering cargo to a facility partially constructed atop confiscated land qualify as trafficking in confiscated property under the Act? 3. Do companies that lawfully carry agricultural commodities from the U.S. to Cuba engage in lawful travel under the Act?”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-283.html
Sep 08 2025- Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 14, 2025)
Oct 13 2025- Waiver of right of respondent Odette Blanco De Fernandez, et al. to respond filed.
Oct 14 2025- Brief amici curiae of Crowley Latin America Services, LLC, et al. filed.
Oct 22 2025- DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/7/2025.
Oct 30 2025- Response Requested. (Due December 1, 2025)
Nov 20 2025- Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 1, 2025 to January 15, 2026, submitted to The Clerk.
Nov 24 2025- Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 15, 2026.
November 20, 2025- BY ELECTRONIC FILING
The Honorable Scott S. Harris
Clerk, United States Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20543
Re: Seaboard Marine Ltd. v. Odette Blanco de Fernandez, No. 25-283
Dear Mr. Harris:
I write on behalf of respondent in the above-captioned case. On October 30, the Court called for a response to the petition for a writ of certiorari in this case. The response is currently due December 1. Under Rule 30.4, respondent respectfully requests that the time to file a response be extended by forty-five days, to and including January 15, 2026. The requested extension will allow respondent sufficient time—accounting for the intervening Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year’s holidays—to prepare a response that will be helpful to the Court. Respondent needs that additional time to review the petition, the amicus brief in support, and the records in two pending cases (Nos. 24-699 & 24-983) involving the same statute at issue in this case. Counsel for petitioner have indicated that they do not consent to this extension. Thank you very much for your time, attention, and assistance. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
Eugene A. Sokoloff
MoloLamken LLP
300 N. LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60654
T: 312.639.8410
esokoloff@mololamken.com
www.mololamken.com
