Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. · ¶74

At the end of the day, the Court's interpretation of Title III treats all property interests as if they were perpetual ones. Like the Eleventh Circuit, I “do not believe that Con- gress, in enacting Title III, meant to convert property interests which were temporally limited at the time of their confscation into fee simple interests in perpetuity such that the holders of such limited interests could assert trafficking claims through what Buzz Lightyear called `infnity and beyond.' ” 119 F. 4th, at 1287 (quoting Toy Story (Pixar Animation Studios/Walt Disney Pictures 1995)). Instead, I would hold that a plaintiff can recover under Title III only when the defendant traffcs in the actual property that was confscated from the plaintiff. Here, that means Havana Docks' claim should fail, because the cruise lines did not traffic in Havana Docks' time-limited—and long-ago expired— concession. I…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.