1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO.: 20-cv-23287-DPG 

LUIS MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, 

MARIA TERESA RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a 

MARIA TERESA LANDA, 

ALFREDO RAMON FORNS, 

RAMON ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ, 

RAUL LORENZO RODRIGUEZ, 

CHRISTINA CONROY, and 

FRANCISCO RAMON RODRIGUEZ, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

IMPERIAL BRANDS PLC, 

CORPORACIÓN HABANOS, S.A., 

WPP PLC, YOUNG & RUBICAM LLC, 

and BCW LLC, a/k/a BURSON COHN & 

WOLFE LLC, 

Defendants. 

MOTION TO JOIN STAY FOR DEFENDANT IMPERIAL BRANDS PLC BY 

DEFENDANTS WPP PLC, YOUNG & RUBICAM LLC, AND BCW LLC 

Defendants WPP plc (“WPP”), Young & Rubicam LLC (“Y&R”), and BCW LLC a/k/a 

Burson Cohn & Wolfe LLC (“BCW”) (collectively, “WPP Defendants”) have reviewed 

Defendant Imperial Brands plc’s (“Imperial”) motion for a limited stay, ECF No. 14 (“Mot”).1

To promote judicial economy and facilitate efficient management of the litigation, WPP 

1 The WPP Defendants acknowledge the Court’s requirement that in cases involving multiple 

defendants, where possible, the defendants move jointly. See Notice of Court Practice (ECF No. 

4). In this instance, however, Imperial’s motion was filed before the WPP Defendants appeared in 

this action. Even so, the WPP Defendants’ request for stay joins the request previously filed by 

Imperial and seeks a stay only to the extent that the Court also determines that it is appropriate to 

stay these proceedings as to Imperial.

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 1 of 8
2 

Defendants respectfully request that the Court stay the proceedings against them to the extent 

they are stayed against Imperial. 

BACKGROUND 

Members of the Rodriguez family (“Plaintiffs”) bring suit against Defendants for 

allegedly violating the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as the 

“Helms-Burton Act”), 22 U.S.C. § 6021 et seq. The statute purports to create a cause of action 

for damages against any person or entity who “knowingly and intentionally” “traffics” in 

property confiscated by the Cuban government from any U.S. citizen or company. 22 U.S.C. 

§§ 6023(13)(A), 6082(a). As well described by Imperial’s motion, the extraterritorial reach of 

the Helms Burton Act caused “international uproar.” See Mot. at 4 (quoting Odebrecht Constr., 

Inc. v. Prasad, 876 F. Supp. 2d 1305, 1311-12 (S.D. Fla. 2012)). In light of the negative foreign 

reaction, President Clinton suspended the right to bring suit under the Helms Burton Act shortly 

after the law’s enactment.2 Successive Republican and Democratic administrations continued to 

suspend this provision based on the determination that doing so was “necessary to the national 

interests of the United States” and would “expedite a transition to democracy in Cuba,” see 22 

U.S.C. § 6085, until President Trump allowed the suspension to expire in May 2019, see U.S. 

Dep’t of State, Sec. of State Michael R. Pompeo’s Remarks to the Press (April 17, 2019), 

https://www.state.gov/remarks-to-the-press-11/. 

Plaintiffs allege that they own a claim to real property—a cigarette factory referred to in 

the complaint as the “RRHSC Property”—allegedly confiscated by the Cuban government in 

1961. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 3, 40. The crux of Plaintiffs’ allegations is that Defendants 

Imperial and Corporación Habanos S.A. (“Habanos”) used the RRHSC Property to produce, 

2 See David E. Sanger, Clinton Grants, Then Suspends, Right to Sue Foreigners on Cuba, N.Y.

TIMES (July 17, 1996), https://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/17/world/clinton-grants-thensuspends-right-to-sue-foreigners-on-cuba.html. 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 2 of 8
3 

store, and ship cigars and other tobacco products without Plaintiffs’ consent and without 

providing compensation. Id. ¶ 6. The complaint alleges that, today, the factory is “in the 

exclusive control of the Cuban government through Tabacuba [the Cuban tobacco company], 

Habanos and its joint venture partner, Imperial.” Id. ¶ 45. Plaintiffs claim that Imperial did or 

will profit from the RRHSC Property by selling its joint venture stake in Habanos. Id. ¶¶ 26, 52. 

Plaintiffs do not claim that any WPP Defendant had an ownership interest in or control 

over the RRHSC Property. Nor do Plaintiffs claim that any WPP Defendant made direct use of 

the RRHSC Property. Rather, Plaintiffs allege that Y&R and BCW were hired by Imperial to 

publicize Habanos products and to establish “portals” on Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram for 

Imperial to market Habanos products.3 Compl. ¶¶ 8-10, 48. WPP’s supposed involvement in the 

alleged trafficking is solely through its corporate ownership of Y&R and BCW. Id. ¶¶ 8, 10, 27, 

32, 48. Plaintiffs do not allege that Y&R, BCW, or WPP were aware that any products they 

allegedly marketed were made, stored in, or distributed from a property nationalized by the 

Cuban government. 

ARGUMENT 

District courts have inherent authority to stay proceedings “to control the disposition of 

the causes on [their] docket with economy of time and effort for [themselves], for counsel, and 

for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). “Stays of proceedings can 

promote judicial economy, reduce confusion and prejudice, and prevent possibly inconsistent 

resolutions.” Zia v. Citimortgage, Inc., No. 15-23026-CIV, 2016 WL 1230597, at *2 (S.D. Fla. 

Mar. 22, 2016) (Gayles, J.) (citing Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997)). Indeed, 

“[f]ederal courts routinely exercise their power to stay a proceeding where a stay would promote 

3 Although the complaint accuses Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram of also unlawfully 

“trafficking” in the cigar factory, Compl. ¶¶ 27-29, 48, these companies are not defendants here.

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 3 of 8
4 

judicial economy and efficiency.” Cypress Chase Condo. Ass’n A v. QBE Ins. Corp. No. 10-

61987-CIV, 2011 WL 1544860, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 15, 2011) (citing Miccosukee Tribe of 

Indians of Fla. v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 559 F.3d 1191, 1198 (11th Cir. 2009)). The 

decision to stay a case is within the “broad discretion” of the district court. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 

706; see also Chrysler Int’l Corp. v. Chemaly, 280 F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 2002) (“At the 

outset, we stress the broad discretion district courts have in managing their cases.”)

Imperial has moved for a limited stay until the European Commission rules on its 

pending request for authorization to defend itself in this litigation.4 Imperial explains that such a 

stay is warranted to promote international comity and preserve scarce judicial resources, and is 

appropriate because it is limited in duration and does not prejudice Plaintiffs. Mot. at 9-13. A 

stay of proceedings against WPP Defendants—commensurate with any stay granted for 

Imperial—similarly preserves judicial resources. It also facilitates orderly management of the 

litigation. 

First, the litigation is likely to involve legal issues common to Imperial and WPP 

Defendants. Imperial’s motion for a limited stay anticipates several defenses to the complaint, 

including that “evidence from public sources reveals that the factory has been closed for the 

better part of a decade” and that Plaintiffs’ claim is accordingly barred by the statute of 

4 Although the complaint alleges that WPP is a U.K.-incorporated entity, Compl. ¶ 21, the 

company is incorporated in the Bailiwick of Jersey. Jersey is a British Crown Dependency and 

not part of either the United Kingdom or the European Union (although it has significant 

relationships with each). Jersey has not yet implemented European Council Regulation 

2271/96—discussed in detail in Imperial’s motion—in Jersey territory. Accordingly, WPP is not 

obligated to seek authorization to defend itself in this litigation under the Regulation. The 

Regulation also does not require applications for authorization from Y&R or BCW, which are 

incorporated in Delaware. Compl. ¶¶ 22-23. 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 4 of 8
5 

limitations. Mot. at 7.5 Other recent Helms Burton cases have addressed purely legal issues that 

may also arise here. See, e.g., Glen v. Am. Airlines, Inc., No. 4:20-CV-482-A, 2020 WL 

4464665, at *2-3 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 2020) (dismissing case based in part on lack of Article III 

standing); Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 19-cv-23590, 2020 WL 

1905219, at *10-11 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 17, 2020) (discussing interpretation of “trafficking” under the 

Helms Burton Act). Efficient use of judicial resources favors adjudicating any common legal 

questions at one time, rather than in serial motions brought by WPP, Y&R, and BCW and then, 

later, by Imperial. Cf. Friends of the Everglades v. United States, No. 08-21785-CIV, 2008 WL 

11410108, at *2-3 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2008) (staying case as to all defendants pending the appeal 

of a related matter involving only some of the defendants).

Second, Plaintiffs allege that WPP, Y&R, and BCW’s unlawful “trafficking” in the 

property arises from “assisting” Imperial, Habanos, and non-defendant Tabacuba in marketing 

and publicizing the Habanos products made, stored at, or shipped from the RRHSC Property. 

Compl. ¶ 56. All actions ascribed in the complaint to WPP Defendants were purportedly taken 

as part of Y&R and BCW’s engagement by Imperial to undertake these marketing efforts, and all 

claims against WPP Defendants are therefore derivative of claims Plaintiffs allege against 

Imperial. Accordingly, it makes little sense for litigation to proceed against WPP, Y&R, and 

BCW while staying litigation against Imperial. 

Third, the requested stay will not prejudice Plaintiffs. The complaint requests purely 

monetary relief, Compl. ¶¶ 63-64, and makes no claim that such relief is needed on an 

5

Imperial also asserts that it is likely to seek to dismiss the complaint based on lack of personal 

jurisdiction. Mot. at 2 n.1. Imperial explains that it is a U.K.-incorporated and U.K. 

headquartered company, and Plaintiffs’ claim “does not arise out of or relate to any connection 

between Imperial and the forum.” Id. Similarly, the only apparent connection between the 

forum, Plaintiffs’ claim, and WPP Defendants—none of which is incorporated in or has its 

principal places of business in Florida—appears to be the residence of certain Plaintiffs. Compl. 

¶¶ 27-30.

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 5 of 8
6 

emergency basis. Moreover, the stay proposed by Imperial is limited in duration: to the earlier 

of forty-five days after the European Commission grants Imperial’s request for authorization to 

defend the litigation, or February 9, 2021.6See Ortega Trujillo v. Conover & Co. Commc’ns, 

Inc., 221 F.3d 1262, 1264-65 (11th Cir. 2000) (vacating stay when the district court did not 

justify its “indefinite” duration). 

For the foregoing reasons, WPP Defendants respectfully request a stay of proceedings 

commensurate with any stay granted to Imperial. 

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

In accordance with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3), WPP, Y&R, and BCW have conferred with 

Plaintiffs’ counsel about their request to stay the proceedings commensurate with any stay 

granted to Imperial. Plaintiffs’ counsel does not agree to the requested relief. Counsel for 

Imperial—the only other defendant as to which Plaintiffs have issued summonses and purported 

to serve process—consents to the relief requested. 

6 As explained in Imperial’s motion, European Council Regulation 2271/96 prohibits European 

Union-incorporated companies from complying with any requirement or prohibition based on or 

resulting from the Helms-Burton Act or lawsuits filed under the Helms-Burton Act, unless the 

companies receive authorization from the European Commission. Mot. at 5. Violation of this 

Regulation is a criminal offense in the United Kingdom, where Imperial is incorporated. Id. at 6. 

Imperial must therefore receive authorization from the European Commission before 

participating in this lawsuit through a motion to dismiss, or risk criminal liability in the United 

Kingdom. Id. at 8, 11-12. It appears that Imperial filed an application for authorization with the 

European Commission on August 27, 2020. ECF No. 15-1 (Decl. of Andrew Rhys Davies).

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 6 of 8
7 

Date: August 31, 2020 s/Naim S. Surgeon 

NAIM S. SURGEON

Florida Bar No. 101682 

E-Mail: naim.surgeon@akerman.com 

PEDRO FREYRE

Florida Bar No. 192140 

E-Mail: pedro.freyre@akerman.com 

AKERMAN LLP 

Three Brickell City Centre 

98 Southeast Seventh Street, Suite 1100 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Tel: (305) 982-5507 

Fax: (305) 374-5095 

CHRISTOPHER DAVIES

(pro hac vice) 

E-Mail: christopher.davies@wilmerhale.com 

JESSICA LUTKENHAUS

(pro hac vice) 

E-Mail: jessica.lutkenhaus@wilmerhale.com 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE 

AND DORR LLP 

1875 Pennsylvania Ave NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

Tel: (202) 663-6000 

Fax: (202) 663-6363 

Attorney for Defendants WPP PLC, YOUNG & 

RUBICAM LLC, and BCW LLC, a/k/a BURSON 

COHN & WOLFE LLC 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 7 of 8
8 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 31, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing Motion 

to Join Stay for Defendant Imperial Brands plc By Defendants WPP plc, Young & Rubicam LLC, 

and BCW LLC with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing 

document is being served this day on all counsel of record in this case via transmission of Notice 

of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. 

s/Naim S. Surgeon 

Naim S. Surgeon 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 8 of 8