Florida Court Rules Against Cuban Nationals in Business Dispute

A Florida court has ruled against two Cuban nationals, Joseph Rodriguez Fuentes and Gregory Biniowsky, in a business dispute with ViajeHoy, LLC, a Florida-based company that charters private flights to Cuba. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that their claims were barred by U.S. laws concerning trade with Cuba. This ruling has significant implications for individuals and companies involved in business transactions with Cuba, particularly under the current U.S. embargo.

The case, Guardian Ad Litem v. ViajeHoy, LLC, was filed in the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida under docket number 3D18-0182. The court's opinion was issued on January 2, 2020, and it highlights the complexities of conducting business with Cuba, especially for non-U.S. citizens.

Background

Joseph Rodriguez Fuentes and Gregory Biniowsky, both Cuban nationals residing in Cuba, initiated a lawsuit against ViajeHoy, LLC, claiming that the company breached an oral agreement made in 2013. According to the appellants, the agreement involved them negotiating landing rights with the Cuban government in exchange for a fifty-percent equity interest in ViajeHoy. They sought damages for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel.

ViajeHoy denied the allegations and raised the defense of illegality, arguing that the claims were barred by the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR) and the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA). These laws restrict commerce with Cuba and prohibit any transactions that have not been specifically authorized by the U.S. government.

The case reached the appellate court after the trial court granted ViajeHoy's motion for summary judgment, determining that the claims made by Fuentes and Biniowsky were indeed barred by the existing U.S. regulations. The court found that even if the alleged business relationships existed, they were illegal under U.S. law.

The Ruling

The Third District Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's decision, stating that the appellants' cause of action was barred by the Cuban Assets Control Regulations and the Trading with the Enemy Act. The court ruled, "ViajeHoy met its burden to establish that no genuine issue of material fact existed and that the cause of action was barred as a matter of law by the Cuban Assets Control Regulations Act, 31 C.F.R. § 515.201., et. seq. and the Trading with the Enemy Act, 50 U.S.C. § 4303, et. seq."

The judges involved in this ruling were SALTER, LOGUE, and SCALES. The court emphasized that the appellants’ argument that they were not subject to these regulations because they were not U.S. citizens was without merit. The court stated that filing a lawsuit in a Florida court subjects them to U.S. laws, including the Cuban embargo.

The court also addressed the licenses obtained by ViajeHoy from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which authorized limited commerce with Cuba. It determined that these licenses did not authorize the alleged oral partnership or business agreements claimed by the appellants. The trial court's reasoning was adopted by the appellate court, which reinforced the strict interpretation of the regulations governing transactions with Cuba.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for both individuals and businesses looking to engage in transactions with Cuba. It reinforces the strict enforcement of U.S. laws that prohibit trade and commerce with Cuba unless specifically authorized by the government. The decision underscores the challenges faced by non-U.S. citizens in asserting legal claims related to business dealings that involve Cuba.

The court's ruling also highlights the importance of understanding the legal landscape surrounding international business transactions, especially in relation to U.S. foreign policy. The decision may deter potential investors or partners from engaging with Cuban nationals or entities, given the risks associated with violating U.S. embargo laws.

What's Next

It is unclear if the appellants will seek to appeal the decision to a higher court. Given the strict nature of U.S. embargo laws, any appeal may face significant challenges. There are no related cases pending at this time, but the ruling may influence future litigation involving similar disputes.