UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

LUIS MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v.

IMPERIAL BRANDS PLC, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:20-cv-23287-DPG

DEFENDANT IMPERIAL BRANDS PLC’S MOTION FOR A LIMITED STAY

Defendant Imperial Brands plc (“Imperial”) respectfully submits this motion for a limited 

stay to give the European Commission an opportunity to decide Imperial’s pending request for

authorization to defend itself in this litigation, so that Imperial can avoid the risk of criminal 

liability in its home jurisdiction. In support, Imperial states as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Plaintiffs sue under Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, seeking hundreds of millions 

of dollars in treble damages, based on allegations that Imperial is “trafficking” in real property—

a factory in Havana—that the Cuban regime confiscated from Plaintiffs’ ancestor nearly sixty 

years ago. There is no nexus between the lawsuit and this forum, save for Plaintiffs’ residence. 

2. Several U.S. allies, including the European Union, oppose the extraterritorial 

application of Title III, and have enacted countermeasures. Imperial is a U.K.-incorporated, U.K.-

headquartered company, all of whose alleged suit-related conduct took place outside the United 

States. The European Commission recently stated that EU law prohibits EU companies like 

Imperial from participating in Title III lawsuits—including by filing motions to dismiss—without

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2020 Page 1 of 14
2

prior authorization from the European Commission. Violation of that restriction is a criminal 

offense under English law, punishable on indictment by an unlimited criminal fine.

3. Within eight days of service, Imperial applied to the European Commission for 

authorization to defend this lawsuit or, at minimum, for authorization in the first instance to file 

and litigate a motion to dismiss the complaint, and requested expedited review of its application. 

Subject to and without waiver of any of its defenses, including defenses as to jurisdiction,1Imperial 

now seeks a temporary stay of this case as against it until the earlier of: (a) forty-five days after 

the European Commission grants Imperial’s request for authorization, or (b) February 9, 2021.

Another Judge of this Court recently granted another EU-headquartered defendant similar relief in 

another Title III case.2

4. The limited stay that Imperial requests will promote important interests in 

international comity. A stay will avoid needlessly requiring Imperial to choose between (a) defying 

the European Commission by filing a motion to dismiss without prior authorization, and risking 

criminal proceedings in its home jurisdiction, or (b) defaulting on the September 9, 2020 deadline 

1 Lane v. XYZ Venture Partners, L.L.C., 322 F. App’x 675, 678 (11th Cir. 2009) (“[A] 

motion to stay is neither a responsive pleading nor a motion made under Rule 12, and thus does 

not operate as a waiver of the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(h).”).

When the European Commission authorizes it to file a motion to dismiss, Imperial will 

demonstrate, inter alia, that the complaint reveals no basis to subject Imperial to personal 

jurisdiction. The complaint rightly does not attempt to plead that this U.K.-incorporated, U.K.-

headquartered company is subject to the Court’s general jurisdiction. Waite v. All Acquisition 

Corp., 901 F.3d 1307, 1317-22 (11th Cir. 2018). The complaint equally reveals no basis for 

specific jurisdiction, because the claim does not arise out of or relate to any connection between 

Imperial and the forum. Id. at 1313. In particular, Plaintiffs’ residence in the forum does not 

support the exercise of specific jurisdiction. Id. at 1315-16. See also Order at 6-16, Iglesias v. 

Pernod Ricard, No. 1:20-cv-20157-KMW (S.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2020), ECF No. 55 (dismissing Title 

III case for lack of personal jurisdiction); Del Valle v. Trivago GmbH, Civil Action No. 19-22619-

Civ-Scola, 2020 WL 2733729, at *2-4 (S.D. Fla. May 26, 2020) (same).

2 Ex. A (Order, Marti v. Iberostar Hoteles y Apartamentos, S.L., No. 20-20078-Civ-Scola 

(S.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2020), ECF No. 17).

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2020 Page 2 of 14
3

to respond to the complaint in this case. Such a stay will protect Imperial without causing any

cognizable prejudice to Plaintiffs. There is nothing emergent about the purely monetary relief that 

Plaintiffs seek, and nothing will prevent them from prosecuting their claim once the short stay 

expires. Moreover, Plaintiffs cannot plausibly argue that a stay of the requested duration is 

unreasonable, given that it took them almost sixteen months to file this lawsuit after Title III went 

into effect, and almost five months to file and serve the complaint on Imperial after they first 

threatened to do so. Finally, the requested stay will preserve judicial resources, by allowing 

Plaintiffs’ claim to be adjudicated on the merits, without unnecessary default-judgment 

proceedings before this Court or the risk of criminal proceedings in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND

Title III of the Helms-Burton Act Causes “Uproar” Among U.S. Allies

5. In 1996, Congress enacted Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, 22 U.S.C. §§ 6081-

85, for the purpose of deterring foreign investment in and business with Cuba. Glen v. Club 

Méditerranée, S.A., 450 F.3d 1251, 1255 (11th Cir. 2006). To that end, Title III purports to create 

a new “statutory right of action against any person or entity who traffics in property confiscated 

by the Cuban government from any American citizen or company.” Odebrecht Constr., Inc. v. 

Prasad, 876 F. Supp. 2d 1305, 1311 (S.D. Fla. 2012). Trafficking includes “knowingly and 

intentionally” engaging in “commercial activity using or otherwise benefiting from confiscated 

property” and profiting from trafficking committed by another. 22 U.S.C. § 6023(13)(A)(ii), (iii).

6. Although labeled “money damages,” id. § 6082(a)(1)(A), the Title III statutory 

remedy is unconnected to any harm caused by the alleged trafficking. Rather, the “trafficker” is 

liable to “any United States national who owns the claim to” property confiscated by the Cuban 

government for three-times the greater of (a) the present fair-market value of that property, or 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2020 Page 3 of 14
4

(b) the value at the time of confiscation plus compound interest at the judgment rate. Id. 

§ 6082(a)(1)(A)(i)(III), (1)(B), (3)(B), (3)(C)(ii).

7. “The passage of the [Helms-Burton] Act caused an international uproar among 

United States’ allies due to the extraterritorial reach of Title III.” Odebrecht Constr., Inc., 876 F. 

Supp. 2d at 1311-12 (citations omitted). “In light of the foreign reaction to Title III,” successive 

Presidents suspended the statute from 1996 through 2019 because they determined that doing so 

was “necessary to the national interests of the United States” and would “expedite a transition to 

democracy in Cuba.” Id. at 1312-14; see 22 U.S.C. § 6085(b) (authorizing the President to suspend 

Title III). In May 2019, however, President Trump lifted the suspension, and Title III became 

effective. See U.S. Department of State, Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo’s Remarks to the 

Press (Apr. 17, 2019), https://www.state.gov/remarks-to-the-press-11/. Thereafter, plaintiffs began 

filing Title III cases—including this case—in this and other districts.

The European Union and United Kingdom Enact Countermeasures to Title III

8. Meanwhile, the United States’ allies, including the European Union, Canada, and 

Mexico, enacted measures to counteract Title III’s extraterritorial effect. Odebrecht Constr., Inc., 

876 F. Supp. 2d at 1312; see also Jürgen Huber, The Helms-Burton Blocking Statute of the 

European Union, 20 Fordham Int’l L.J. 699-701 (1996) (“Huber”) (describing the EU’s measures 

aimed at “neutralizing the extra-territorial effects” of Title III).

9. As relevant here, the EU implemented a regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 

2271/96, based on findings that the extraterritorial application of Title III would violate 

international law and impede the attainment of important EU policies, including the harmonious 

development of world trade, the free movement of capital, and the removal of restrictions on direct 

investment. Ex. B (Council Regulation (EC) No. 2271/96, Protecting Against the Effects of the 

Extra-Territorial Application of Legislation Adopted by a Third Country, and Actions Based

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2020 Page 4 of 14
5

Thereon or Resulting Therefrom, 1996 O.J. (L 309) 1 (EC) (“Regulation 2271/96”);

3

see also 

Huber, supra, at 711-13. Regulation 2271/96’s “main purpose” is to “protect EU operators 

engaging in lawful international trade and/or movement of capital as well as related commerce 

activities with third countries in accordance with EU law.” Ex. C (Guidance Note, Questions and 

Answers: adoption of update of the Blocking Statute (2018/C 277 I/03)) ¶ 1. In particular, the EU 

maintains that EU companies must be “free to choose whether to start working, continue, or cease 

business operations” in Cuba, free of the coercive, extraterritorial application of Title III. Id. ¶ 5. 

10. To that end, Regulation 2271/96 prohibits EU-incorporated companies such as 

Imperial from complying, directly or indirectly, actively or by deliberate omission, with any 

requirement or prohibition, including requests of U.S. courts, based on or resulting, directly or 

indirectly, from Title III or from lawsuits filed under Title III. Ex. B (Regulation 2271/96) Art. 5;4

Ex. C (Guidance Note) ¶ 4; see also Huber, supra, at 702-05. The defendant in another Title III 

case pending in this District recently reported that the European Commission takes the position 

that, absent authorization, Regulation 2271/96 “prohibits [the defendant] from actively appearing 

before U.S. courts pursuant to the relevant summons or any others based on Title III of the HelmsBurton Act, including the filing of a Rule 12 motion.” Ex. D (Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Lift Stay, Marti v. Iberostar Hoteles y Apartamentos, S.L., No. 20-20078-Civ-Scola 

(S.D. Fla. Aug. 10, 2020), ECF No. 22) ¶ 7 (emphasis added).

11. The EU Member States are required to impose “effective, proportional and 

dissuasive” sanctions on those who violate Regulation 2271/96. Ex. B (Regulation 2271/96) Art. 

3 Regulation 2271/96 was amended in 2018, purely to address changes to U.S. sanctions 

against Iran. See Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1100, available at https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018R1100&from=EN.

4 EU regulations create directly effective law in the EU member states. Volodarskiy v. Delta 

Airlines, Inc., 784 F.3d 349, 354 (7th Cir. 2015).

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2020 Page 5 of 14
6

9 (emphasis added); see also Huber, supra, at 706. In the United Kingdom, where Imperial is 

incorporated and headquartered, violation of Regulation 2271/96 is a criminal offense, punishable 

on indictment by an unlimited fine. See Ex. E (Statutory Instrument 1996 No. 3171 (The 

Extraterritorial U.S. Legislation (Sanctions against Cuba, Iran and Libya) (Protection of Trading 

Interests) Order 1996) ¶ 2(1)(a), Explanatory Note.

5

12. However, the European Commission may authorize an EU-incorporated company

such as Imperial to participate in a Title III lawsuit, if the applicant demonstrates that 

nonparticipation would cause serious damage to the interests of the applicant or of the EU. Ex. B

(Regulation 2271/96) Arts. 5, 7-8;

6 Ex. C (Guidance Note) ¶¶ 16-20. The EU has established a 

confidential process and promulgated detailed criteria that the Commission must consider when 

evaluating such an application. Ex. F (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1101) 

Arts. 3-5. When determining the timeframe for its decision on an application for authorization, the

European Commission is required to “take fully into account” the time limits to which the applicant 

is subject, Ex. B (Regulation 2271/96) Art. 7(b), and will process requests “as swiftly as possible,”

Ex. C (Guidance Note) ¶ 19.

13. Regulation 2271/96 will be incorporated into English law as “retained EU law”

after the conclusion of the “Brexit” transition period on December 31, 2020. Ex. G (Draft The 

Protecting against the Effects of the Extraterritorial Application of Third Country Legislation 

5 The 1996 Statutory Instrument was amended in 2018, purely to reflect the 2018 amendment 

of Regulation 2271/96 referenced in footnote 3 above that addressed changes to U.S. sanctions 

against Iran. See Statutory Instrument 2018 No. 1357 (The Extraterritorial U.S. Legislation 

(Sanctions Against Cuba, Iran and Libya) (Protection of Trading Interests) (Amendment) Order 

2018), available at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/1357/pdfs/uksi_20181357_en.pdf. 

6 The EU Commission is the executive and administrative organ of the EU. Intel Corp. v. 

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 250 (2004) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2020 Page 6 of 14
7

(Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019), Explanatory Note. As of January 1, 2021, a U.K. 

Secretary of State will assume the role of the European Commission in resolving requests from 

U.K.-based entities like Imperial for authorization to respond to a Title III action. Id. Part 3 & 

Explanatory Note. 

Plaintiffs File This Title III Case Sixteen Months After Title III Became Effective, 

and Almost Five Months After They Threatened To Do So

14. A March 2020 letter from Plaintiffs’ counsel alleged that Imperial is “trafficking” 

in property—a cigar factory in Havana, Cuba—that belonged to Plaintiffs’ ancestor and that the 

Cuban government confiscated in 1961. Ex. H at 2-4. Plaintiffs stated that unless Imperial ceased 

its alleged trafficking within thirty days, they would file a Title III lawsuit seeking $405 million in 

treble damages, plus attorneys’ fees. Id. at 12. Imperial’s counsel responded that there is no basis 

for any such claim, including because evidence from public sources reveals that the factory has 

been closed for the better part of a decade. Therefore, Plaintiffs would not be able to allege 

compliance with 22 U.S.C. § 6084, which provides that a Title III claim “may not be brought more 

than 2 years after the trafficking giving rise to the action has ceased to occur.” Ex. I. 

15. After Plaintiffs’ March 2020 letter, Imperial heard nothing from Plaintiffs for 

almost five months, until they served the summons and complaint at Imperial’s U.K. headquarters 

on August 19, 2020. Absent a stay, Imperial’s response to the complaint is due on September 9, 

2020. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i).

16. In light of the European Commission’s position that Regulation 2271/96 prohibits 

an EU operator such as Imperial from moving to dismiss a Title III action without prior 

authorization, supra ¶ 10, on August 27, 2020, Imperial sought authorization to defend this lawsuit 

or, at a minimum, for authorization in the first instance to file and litigate a motion to dismiss the 

complaint. Declaration of Andrew Rhys Davies (Aug. 28, 2020) ¶¶ 4-5 (filed separately).

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2020 Page 7 of 14
8

17. Imperial now seeks a modest stay of proceedings to allow the European 

Commission time to evaluate Imperial’s application, and to avoid exposing Imperial to the risk of

criminal liability by forcing it to respond to this lawsuit without authorization. The Court should 

order that Imperial’s response to the complaint be due on the earlier of (a) forty-five days after the 

European Commission grants Imperial’s request for authorization, or (b) February 9, 2021 (i.e., 

five months after Imperial’s existing deadline to respond to the complaint).

LEGAL STANDARD

18. Notwithstanding that “[f]ederal courts have a ‘virtually unflagging obligation’ to 

exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon them,” “in some private international disputes the prudent 

and just action for a federal court is to abstain from the exercise of jurisdiction.” Turner Entm’t 

Co. v. Degeto Film GmbH, 25 F.3d 1512, 1519 (11th Cir. 1994) (quoting Colorado River Water 

Conserv. Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976)). Abstention on international-comity 

grounds can justify far-reaching relief, extending even to the dismissal of a lawsuit. See, e.g., 

Ungaro-Benages v. Dresdner Bank AG, 379 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2004). Here, however, Imperial 

seeks much more modest relief—a limited stay pending a decision by the European Commission 

on Imperial’s request for authorization to defend this lawsuit. 

19. District courts have broad inherent authority to stay their proceedings. Ortega 

Trujillo v. Conover & Co. Commc’ns, 221 F.3d 1262, 1264 (11th Cir. 2000). A stay may be 

justified “simply as a means of controlling the district court’s docket and of managing cases before 

the district court.” Id. “And, in some cases, a stay might be authorized also by principles of 

abstention.” Id. (citation omitted). The temporary stay sought here would serve three important 

objectives, by promoting: “(1) a proper level of respect for the acts of our fellow sovereign 

nations,” also known as “international comity,” “(2) fairness” to the parties; and “(3) efficient use 

of scarce judicial resources.” Turner Entm’t Co., 25 F.3d at 1518. And because the requested stay 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2020 Page 8 of 14
9

is time-limited, it does not violate the bar on “immoderate” stays. Ortega Trujillo, 221 F.3d at 

1264.

ARGUMENT

International Comity Requires a Temporary Stay to Allow the European Commission 

an Opportunity to Decide Imperial’s Request for Authorization to Defend this Action

20. A temporary stay is necessary to promote international comity—the recognition 

“which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive, or judicial acts of another 

nation.” Turner Entm’t Co., 25 F.3d at 1519 (internal quotations and citation omitted). The United 

States Supreme Court has admonished courts to “take care to demonstrate due respect for any 

special problem confronted by the foreign litigant on account of its nationality or the location of 

its operations, and for any sovereign interest expressed by a foreign state.” Société Nationale 

Industrielle Aérospatiale v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522, 546 (1987). As the 

Eleventh Circuit put it: “Courts and legislatures should take every reasonable precaution” to avoid 

subjecting participants in global commerce to “differing legal commands of separate sovereigns.” 

In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 691 F.2d 1384, 1391 (11th Cir. 1982) (emphasis added; citation 

and quotation marks omitted).

21. Here, absent a stay, Imperial is obliged to respond to the complaint by September 

9, 2020. Under the EU’s recently articulated position, Imperial is obliged not to respond to the 

complaint until the European Commission has granted authorization. Imperial sought such 

authorization promptly after service. Supra ¶ 16. This is precisely the kind of “special problem,” 

Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale, 482 U.S. at 546, “entangled in international relations,” 

Ungaro-Benages, 379 F.3d at 1237, that implicates international-comity concerns. Here, those 

concerns require issuance of a temporary stay, to permit the European Commission to consider 

Imperial’s pending request for authorization. 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2020 Page 9 of 14
10

22. The Eleventh Circuit has often held that it is appropriate to stay district-court 

proceedings in the interests of international comity, usually in the context of parallel proceedings 

in another jurisdiction. See e.g., Turner, 25 F.3d at 1523; Posner v. Essex Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 1209, 

1223-24 (11th Cir. 1999); Dash 224, LLC v. Aerovias de Integracion Reg’l Aires, S.A., No. 1:13-

cv-22796, 2014 WL 11456463, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2014), aff’d, 605 F. App’x 868 (11th Cir. 

2015). 

23. Consistent with these authorities, the Honorable Robert N. Scola, Jr. recently stayed 

a Title III action against an EU defendant “in the interest of international comity,” pending the 

European Commission’s decision on a request for authorization to file a motion to dismiss. Ex. A

(Order, Marti v. Iberostar Hoteles y Apartamentos S.L., No. 20-20078-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla. Apr. 

24, 2020) (“Iberostar”), ECF No. 17).7Judge Scola noted that under Spanish law, the Spanish 

defendant in that case faced a penalty of EUR 600,000 if it participated in the U.S. litigation 

without authorization from the European Commission. Id. Here, Imperial faces much greater 

potential liability, in the form of an unlimited criminal fine. Supra ¶ 11. 

24. This Court should adopt the same approach, and grant Imperial’s request for a 

limited stay. That relief is consistent with the comity factors set forth in the Restatement, which 

courts often reference as a guide to comity. See, e.g., United States v. MacAllister, 160 F.3d 1304, 

1308-09 (11th Cir. 1998). Those factors support a stay here because the EU views the 

extraterritorial application of Title III to EU companies as contrary to international law, asserts a 

strong interest in permitting its companies to engage in international trade, and takes the position 

that its companies must not respond to Title III lawsuits without authorization. Restatement (Third) 

of Foreign Relations Law § 403(2)(a), (b) (1987). Moreover, Imperial is a foreign entity whose 

7 A move to vacate the stay is pending before Judge Scola. See Iberostar, ECF Nos. 21-23.

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2020 Page 10 of 14
11

alleged conduct took place entirely overseas. Id. § 403(2)(c), (e)-(h). See supra ¶¶ 2, 14. At a 

minimum, these factors demonstrate that the EU’s interest in this matter is more than strong enough 

to warrant a temporary stay. A stay will allow Imperial to respect the EU’s recently articulated

view that authorization is required before an EU company can move to dismiss a Title III lawsuit, 

avoid the needless risk of being found to have violated EU law, and defend this lawsuit. 

The Temporary Stay Sought Here Is Fair to the Parties

25. The requested temporary stay is appropriate under the circumstances of this case

because it will protect Imperial without prejudicing Plaintiffs. Turner Entm’t Co., 25 F.3d at 1522 

(“a federal court must be satisfied that its decision will not result in prejudice to the party opposing 

the stay”). Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit with full knowledge—based on the pleadings in 

Iberostar—that Imperial, as an EU company, would need time to seek authorization from the 

European Commission before it could respond to the complaint. Moreover, there is nothing 

emergent about the purely monetary relief that Plaintiffs are seeking, and they have demanded 

interest that would compensate them for any short delay in payment. ECF No. 1 (Compl.) ¶ 63. As 

the stay will not prevent Plaintiffs from prosecuting their claim, this is nothing like cases in which 

comity-related relief has been denied because it would irrevocably impair a party’s rights. Cf. In 

re Grand Jury Proceedings, 691 F.2d at 1391 (quashing a grand jury subpoena on comity grounds 

would “emasculate the grand jury process”).

26. Indeed, the stay that Imperial is seeking is comparable in duration to the time it 

took Plaintiffs to file and serve their complaint on Imperial after they first threatened to do so, and 

is significantly shorter than the sixteen months it took Plaintiffs to initiate this action after Title III 

became effective. Supra ¶¶ 7, 14-15. Moreover, even now, three weeks after Plaintiffs filed this 

lawsuit, the public docket reflects that Plaintiffs still have not issued a summons against one of the 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2020 Page 11 of 14
12

defendants, much less served that defendant. Under all of these circumstances, Plaintiffs have no 

plausible claim that the modest stay sought here would cause any cognizable prejudice.

27. By contrast, Imperial faces a risk of significant harm, absent a stay. Imperial would 

have to choose between (a) filing a motion to dismiss without authorization and risking criminal 

prosecution in its home jurisdiction, together with the resulting monetary and reputational harm, 

and (b) not responding to the complaint and risking entry of an (unwarranted) default judgment. 

There is no reason to place Imperial in that invidious position, for the sake of a short delay. A stay 

is properly granted when, as here, it will “ensur[e] the ability of the parties to fully and fairly 

litigate their claims.” Turner Entm’t Co., 25 F.3d at 1522. 

A Temporary Stay Would Preserve Scarce Judicial Resources

28. The stay that Imperial seeks here is also warranted to promote the “efficient use of 

scarce judicial resources.” Id. at 1518. There is a strong public-policy preference for adjudicating 

cases on the merits, rather than by default. Mitchell v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 294 

F.3d 1309, 1316-17 (11th Cir. 2002). Imperial seeks this stay precisely so that it can defend itself. 

Moreover, granting a temporary stay so that this case can be decided on the merits will avoid the 

need both for unnecessary default-judgment proceedings here and, potentially, collateral litigation 

arising from such proceedings, and criminal proceedings in the United Kingdom. 

The Requested Stay Is Limited in Duration

29. Finally, the requested stay should be granted because it is appropriately limited in 

duration. Ortega Trujillo, 221 F.3d at 1264 (stay must not be “immoderate”). There is an outer 

limit of February 9, 2021, and the stay will expire sooner if Imperial’s request for authorization is 

granted more quickly. See e.g., Morrissey v. Subaru of Am., Inc., No. 1:15-cv-21106-KMM, 2015 

WL 4512641, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 24, 2015) (stay was appropriate where moving party “identified 

the specific resolution point that will terminate the stay”). Indeed, because the European 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2020 Page 12 of 14
13

Commission has already been addressing the complexities of these issues in the context of 

Iberostar, it is quite possible that Imperial’s application could be resolved expeditiously.

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1(a)(3)

Imperial has conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel about its request to stay these proceedings 

as against it in accordance with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3), and Plaintiffs’ counsel does not agree to the 

requested relief. Counsel for other defendants as to which Plaintiffs have issued summonses and 

purported to serve process—WPP plc, Young & Rubicam LLC and BCW LLC—consent to the 

relief requested.

Imperial also requested that Plaintiffs’ counsel consent to an extension of Imperial’s 

deadline to respond to the complaint pending resolution of this motion. Plaintiff’s counsel refused 

to do so, offering only a short extension that could require Imperial to respond to the complaint 

before a ruling on this motion to stay. Imperial will therefore be separately filing a motion to 

extend its time to respond to the complaint while the present motion to stay is pending.

WHEREFORE, Imperial respectfully requests that the Court enter an order staying the 

proceedings as against Imperial until the earlier of: (a) forty-five days after the European 

Commission grants Imperial’s request for authorization, or (b) February 9, 2021.

Dated: August 28, 2020

Miami, Florida

 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Mark Raymond

NELSON MULLINS BROAD & CASSELL

Mark Raymond

Mark.Raymond@nelsonmullins.com

Jonathan Etra

Jonathan.Etra@nelsonmullins.com

2 South Biscayne Blvd., 21st Floor

Miami, FL 33131

Telephone: (305) 373-9400

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2020 Page 13 of 14
14

ALLEN & OVERY LLP

Andrew Rhys Davies (pro hac vice pending)

andrewrhys.davies@allenovery.com

Justin L. Ormand (pro hac vice pending )

justin.ormand@allenovery.com

1221 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10020

Telephone: (212) 610-6300

 Attorneys for Defendant Imperial Brands plc

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2020 Page 14 of 14