F I L ED U. S
. C OUR T OF AP PE ALS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT M AY 31 , 2006 THOM A S K. KA HN CL ERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 12648

________________________ D
. C
. D o c k e tN o . 0 4
- 2 1 6 6 4 C V
- K MM E L VI R A D E L A V E GA GL E N, R OB E R T M. GL E N, P l ai n t i ffs-A p p el l an t s,
ve r s us C L U B M É D I T E R R A N É E , S .A ., D ef endant -A pp el l ee .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f ort he S out he r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 31, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d C O X , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C O X , C i rc ui tJudg e: E l vi ra de l a V ega G l en and her son R ob er tM
. G l en (t og ether, “ the G l ens” ) s ued C l u b M éd i t erran ée, S
. A
. an d C l u b M éd i t erran ée G ro u p (“ C l u b M ed ”) fo r t resp ass,
un j ust enri chm ent , and vi ol at i on of the fe dera l T ra di ng w i th t he E nem y A ct(T W E A ).2

T he i r l a w s ui t s e e ks t o r e c ove rc om pe ns a t i on f ora l l e ge dl y w r ongf

ul be ne f i t s t ha tC l ub M e d d e r iv e d th r o u g h o p e r a tio n o f a r e s o r t o n p r o p e r ty th a t th e G le n s c la im to o w n in C uba
. T he di s tr i c t co u rt d i sm i ss e d a l l thr e e c a us e s of a c t i on, hol di ng t ha tthe a c tof
s t a t e doc t r i ne ba r r e d r e c ove r y on the G l e ns ’ unj us t e nr i c hm e nt a nd tr e s pa s s c l a i m s a nd t hatno pri vat e ri gh t of ac t i on exi st s u nd er the T W E A
. T he G l ens app ea l t he di sm i ss al
o f t h e t r e s p a s s a n d u n

j u s te n r i c h me n tc l a i ms o n l y . W e a f f i r m. I . F AC T S & P RO CE DU RA L HI S T OR Y P ri or t o t he C om m un i stre vo l ut i on i n C ub a, E l vira d e l a V ega G l en and h er
s is te r , A n a M a r i a d e la V e g a G le n , w e r e C u b a n c itiz e n s a n d r e s id e n ts w h o jo in tly
ow ne d be ach fro n t p ro pe r ty on the P e ni ns ul a de H i c a c os i n V a r a de r o, C uba
. O n or
a boutJ a nua r y 1, 1959, i n c onj unc t i on w i t h the r e vol ut i on, t he C uba n gove r nm e nt
ex p ro p ri at ed t h e p ro p ert y. T h e G l en s al l eg e th at th e ex p ro p ri at i o n w as i l l eg al
. A l so in 1 9 5 9 , th e s is te r s f

le d C u b a . I n 1997, i n j oi ntve ntur e w i th the C uba n gove r nm e nt , C l ub M e d c ons truc t e d a nd subsequent l y opera t ed a f i ve-s t arl ux ury h ot el on the prop er ty thatthe G l ens had
ow ned. In 19 99 , A na M ar i a de l a V ega G l en di ed and pas se d a ny i nt er es t she st i l l had in th e V a r a d e r o b e a c h p r o p e r ty to h e r n e p h e w R o b e r t M . G le n . T h e G le n s ( n o w b o th U
. S
. c i t i z e ns ) a l l e ge tha t C l ub M e d r e a pe d a pr of i t of m a ny m i l l i ons o f d o l l ars from3

i t s w r ongf

ul oc c upa t i on a nd us e of the i r pr ope r ty f r om 1997 i nt o 2003. I n 2003, C l ub M ed tu rn ed o v er i t s i n t eresti n t h e reso rtt o an u n i d en t i fi ed t h i rd p art y. I n t he di s tr i c tc our t , the G l e ns a s s e r t e d thr e e c l a i m s a ga i ns t C l ub M e d. T w o of t hese , un j ustenri chm entand t re spas s, ar e bas ed on F l ori da l aw . T he thi rd cl ai m w as th a t C lu b M e d v io la te d th e T W E A , 5 0 U .S .C . A p p . § 1 e t s e q . , b y e n g a g in g in bu si ness t ra nsac t i on s prohi bi t ed by t hat f ed eral st atut e. T he di stri ctcourtdi sm i ss ed t he c ompl a i nt i n i t s e nt i r e ty f or f a i l ur e t o s t a t e a c l a i m, ho l di ng tha t the G l ens a re ba r r e d by t he a c t of s t a t e doc tr i ne f r om r e c ove r i ng on the s t a t e l a w c l a i m s a nd t ha tt he T W E A d o e s n o t p r o v id e a p r iv a te r ig h t o f a c tio n . Gl e n v . Cl u b Mé d i t e r r a n é e S
. A. , 36 5 F
. S up p. 2d 12 63 (S
. D
. F l a. 20 05 ). I I . I SSU ES O N A PPEA L & C O N TEN TI O N S O F TH E PA R TI ES Th e G l e n s a p p e a l t h e d i s m i s s a l o f th e i ru n j u s te n r i c h me n ta n d tr e s p a s s c l a i ms
on ly. T hey pri m ar i l y a rgue t hatthe 19 96 C on gres si on al enac t m entof t he C ub an L i be r t y a nd D e m oc r a t i c S ol i da r i ty A c t ( the “ H e l m s - B ur t on A c t ” ) , 22 U
. S
. C
. § 6 0 21
e ts e q. , pr e ve nt s t he c our t s f r om di s m i s s i ng l a w s ui t s l i ke the i r s pur s ua nt t o the a c tof st at e doct ri ne, a j ud i ci al l y- cr ea t ed ru le o f d ec i si on expl ai ned b y the S up re m e C ou rt in W
. S. K i rk pa tri ck & C o ., In c. v. E nvi ronm entalT ec t on i cs C orp. , Int ’l
. 4 9 3 U
. S. 40 20 , 11 0 S
. C t . 70 1 (19 90 ). T he G l ens m ai nt ai n t hatthe H el m s- B urt on A ctcl ar i fi es U
. S. f o r e i g n p o l i c y t o w a r d s Cu b a a n d ma k e s a p p l i c a t i o n o f th e a c t o f s t a t e doc t r i ne4

t o t he i r l a w s ui ti na ppr opr i a t e . C l ub M e d c ont e nds t ha t , e ve n a f t e rt he H e l m s - B ur t on A c t, th e a c t o f

s ta te d o c tr in e b a r s th e G le n s ’ r e c o v e r y .

I I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW

“ T h i s [c] o u rtrev i ew s de no vo a di sm i ss al for f ai l ure t o st at e a cl ai m up on w hi ch
re l ief m ay be grant ed. ” C orse l l o v. L i ncare, Inc. , 42 8 F
. 3d 10 08 , 10 12 (11t h C i r. 2005) ( c i t i ng U

ni t ed St at es ex re l
. C lau se n v. L ab
. C orp. of A m . , Inc. , 290 F
. 3d 1301, 13 07 n. 11 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ))
. I V . DI S CUS S I ON T he ac tof st at e doct ri ne i s a j ud i ci al l y- cr ea t ed rul e of deci si on t hat“ prec l ud es t h e co u rt s o f t h i s co u n try fro m i n q u i ri n g in to th e v al i d i ty o f t h e p u b l i c act s a
re cogn i ze d forei gn sovere i gn po w ercom m it ted w i thi n i t s ow n t er ri t ory. ” B an co N ac i onal de C uba v
. Sabbat i no , 376 U
. S
. 398, 4 0 1 , 8 4 S
. C t . 923, 926 ( 1964)
. T he doc t r i ne pr e ve nt s a ny c our t i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s f r om de c l a r i ng tha ta n of f i c i a l a c tof
a f o r e ig n s o v e r e ig n p e r f

o r m e d w ith i n i t s o w n te r r ito r y is in v a lid
. K i rk pa tri ck , 493 U
. S
. a t 405- 06, 110 S
. C t . a t704- 05. I t“ r e qui r e s t ha t‘ the a c t s of f or e i gn s ove r e i gns t aken w i t hi n t hei r ow n j uri sdi ct i on s s hal l be deem ed val i d. ’ ” FO GAD E v
. ENB R evo ca b l e T

ru st , 263 F
. 3d 1274, 1293 ( 11t h C i r . 2001) ( quot i ng K i rk pa tri ck , 4 9 3 U
. S. at40 9, 11 0 S
. C t . at70 7).5

T he a c tof

s t a t e d o c tr i ne i s a pr oduc tof j udi c i a l c onc e r n f

ors e pa r a t i on of pow e r s , a r e s u l to f

t h e j u d i c i a r y ’ s r e c o g n i t i o n th a ti ti s th e p r o v i n c e o f th e e x e c ut i ve and l egi sl at i ve branches t o est abl i sh and p ursue f orei gn po l i cy an d th atj ud i ci al de t e r m i na t i ons r e ga r di ng the va l i di t y of t he a c t s of

f or e i gn s ove r e i gns m i ght
n e g a tiv e ly a f

f e c t th o s e p o lic ie s . See Ki rk pa tri ck , 493 U
. S
. a t 404, 110 S
. C t . a t704; Sabbat i no , 376 U
. S
. a t431- 33, 84 S
. C t . a t 942- 43. I n Sabbat i no , the S up re m e C ou rt
a ppl i e d t he a ct o f st at e doc tr i ne t o f or e c l os e j udi c i a l c ons i de r a t i on of the va l i di t y of t h e Cu b a n g o v e r n me n t ’ s e x p r o p r i a t i o n o f a s h i p me n t o f

s u g a r . 3 7 6 U
. S. a t4 2 8 , 8 4 S. C t . a t 940. T he C our t he l d tha t “ the J udi c i a l B r a nc h w i l l not e xa m i ne the va l i di t y of a t aki ng of prop er ty w i thi n i t s ow n t er ri t ory by a fore i gn sovere i gn go vernm ent . ” I d. A s a r e s ul t , a c ount e r c l a i m ba s e d on a s s e r t e d i nva l i di ty of the e xpr opr i a t i on f

ai l e d. 376 U
. S
. a t439, 84 S
. C t . a t946. T o di s t i ngui s h Sabbat i no , the G l e ns pr i m a r i l y a r gue tha t , s i nce t h e 1996
e n a c tm e n t o f

th e H e lm s - B u r to n A c t, th e a c t o f s ta te d o c tr in e d o e s n o t p r e v e n t la w s u its l i ke t hei rs fr om proceedi ng beca use, un l i ke Sabbat i no , t he s e c a s e s do notr e qui r e t he
c our t s t o de c i de t he e f

f e c t of of f i c i a l a c t i on by the C uba n gove r nm e nt . I n s o a r gui ng, t he G l e ns r e l y on K i rk

pa tri ck , w hi c h st at es, “ A c tof s t a t e i s s ue s onl y a r i s e w he n a
c o u r t m us t

de c i de – tha t i s , w he n the out c om e of the c a s e tur ns upon
– t h e effect of6

offi cial ac ti on by a f

orei gn sovere i gn . W hen t hatqu es t i on i s noti n t he ca se , nei t her is th e a c t o f

s ta te d o c tr in e .” 4 9 3 U .S . a t 4 0 6 , 1 1 0 S . C t. a t 7 0 5
. T he ef fe ctof t he C ub an go vernm ent ’ s e xp ropri at i on i s, ho w ever , j ustas
r e l e va nt t o t h e G l ens ’ c l a i m s a s i tw a s t o the c ount e r c l a i m i n Sabbat i no . A s t he d i stri ctco u rtreco g n i zed , th e G l en s’ st at e l aw cau ses o f act i o n fo r t resp ass an d u n j u st
e nr i c hm e nt “ a r e pr e di c a t e d on t he i rc ont i nue d o w n e rs h ip o f th e V a r a d e r o p r o p e r ty . .

. . T he gravam en of P l ai nt i ff s’ C om pl ai nt i s thatt he C ub an go vernm entexprop ri at ed t he V a r a de r o pr op e r ty a nd tha t Pl a i nt i f f s ’ ha ve a r i gh t t o s ue [ Cl ub M e d] f r om [s i c] benefi t t i ng fr om t he exprop ri at i on . ” G l en , 365 F
. S upp. 2d a t1270. T he va l i di t y of t he C uba n gove r nm e nt ’ s a c tof e xpr opr i a t i on i s di r e c t l y a t i s s ue i n thi s l i t i ga t i on. T he G l e ns m a i nt a i n tha t the e xpr opr i a t i on w a s i nva l i d; but , i f i t w a s va l i d, the n the y ha ve be e n di ve s t e d of

t h ei r o w n e r s hi p of

the pr ope r ty a nd c a nnotm a i nt a i n a c l a i m f or t r e s pa s s orf

ora ny be ne f

i ttha tC l ub M e d m a y ha ve ga i ne d f ro m i t s us e of

t heUnder Florida law, “[t]respass to real property is a n injury to or use of the land of another 1 by one havingno right or authority .” Guin v. City of Riviera Beac h , 388 So. 2d 60 4, 60 6 ( F la . D ist
. Ct. App. 1980). And, the success of the Glens’ unjust enric hment claim depends on the s ucce ss of their trespa ss claim. See M a r s h a ll

- S h a wv . F ord, 7 5 5 S o . 2d 162, 165 (F la. Dist. Ct. App. 2000) (“[W] here the comm ission of a tort results in the unjust enrichment of the defendant at the plaintiff’ s expense the plaintiff may disreg ard, or

‘waive’ the tort a ction, and sue instea d on a theoretical a nd fi c tit io us c ontr a c t . . . . ” ) ( c itatio ns omi tte d) (emph a sis a dd e d) . T heGl e ns a c kn ow le dg e thi s. Appellants’ Reply

Brief at 20-22. The Gle ns also arg

ue that their state law

claims pertain solely

to Club Med’s operation of 2 the Varadero resor

t and do not implicate “a

ny acts of the Cuban g overnme nt, including c ommercial a c ts. ” In th e a lte rn ativ e , th e y a ssert that Cub a ’s de c isi on to purs ue a c omm e rc ia l jo int ve ntu rewi th Club Med constitutes the only rele vant state a ction in this case, and theact of state doctrinedoes not apply to purely

commerc ial acts of a

fore ign sovereign. These a rguments fail for at least two rea sons. First, as explained above, the rele vant s tate action in this case is Cuba’s expropriation of the Varadero proper

ty . Second, wehave une quivocally stated that “the re is no commercial exception to the act of statedoctrine.” Hond. Aircraft Registry, Ltd. v. Gov’ t of Hond. , 129 F.3d 543, 550 (11th Cir. 1997) (re versingthe district court for erroneously

rely ing on a “perceive d commerc ial exception to the act of statedoctrine”and re mandingfor f urther procee dings)
. 7 pr ope r t y . R e s ol u t i o n o f t he e xpr opr i a t i on’ s e f f e c tw oul d be ne c e s s a r y t o a 1 d et erm i n at i o n o f w h et h er t h e G l en s o w n t h e V arad ero p ro p ert y. 2 R e c ogni z i ng tha t the y m us t ow n the V a r a de r o pr ope r ty i n or de rt o s uc c e e d on t hei r s t at e l aw cl ai m s and att em pt i ng t o avoi d appl i ca t i on of the ac t of st at e doct ri ne, t he G l ens r el y o n the H el m s- B urt on A ct , w hi ch t hey a rgue es t abl i shes bo th t hatt hey
c o n tin u e to h a v e a n “o w n e r s h i p i n t e r e s t” in th e p r o p e r ty a n d th a t th e a c t o f s ta te doc t r i ne c a nnotbe a ppl i e d t o ba rthe i rr e c ove r y . W e not e here t h at the G l e ns ha ve
no tas se rt ed a c l ai m agai nstC l ub M ed base d o n t he st atut ory c ause of ac t i on cr ea t ed by T i t l e I II of the H el m s- B urt on A ct , 22 U
. S
. C
. §§ 60 81 -608 5. A l l part i es agre e that t hey a re un abl e t o d o so b ec au se , as a c on se qu ence of pres i dent i al ac t i on aut ho ri ze d by t he s t a tut e , t he pr i va t e r i ght of a c t i on c r e a t e d the r e i n ha s be e n s us pe nde d a nd i s not8

a v a ila b le to litig a n ts . See 22 U
. S
. C
. § 6085 ( a uthor i z i ng the P r e s i de nt t o s us pe nd the ef fe ct i ve dat e of th e le gi sl at i on i f s uch suspensi on i s “ nece ss ar y t o t he nat i on al in te r e s ts o f

th e U n ite d S ta te s ” ) . T h u s , th e G le n s r e ly o n th e H e lm s - B u r to n A c t s o le ly t o sup po rtt hei r a rgum ent s thatt hei r s t at e l aw ca uses of ac t i on ar e s ust ai nabl e. I n s u p p o r t o f

th e irf ir s t c o n te n tio n , th a t th e H e lm s - B u r to n A c t e s ta b lis h e s th e ir “o w n e r s h ip in te r e s t” in th e V a r a d e r o p r o p e r ty , th e G le n s c ite th e F in d in g s s e c tio n in T i t l e I I I of the s t a tut e , 22 U
. S
. C
. § 6081. B y pa r a phr a s i ng a nd t a ki ng l a ngua ge f r om t hi s s ec t i on ou tof cont ext, the G l ens a rr i ve atthe concl usi on thatC on gres s has
e s ta b lis h e d th a t th e e x p r o p r ia tio n s c o m m itte d b y th e C u b a n g o v e r n m e n t f a ile d to
e xt i ngui s h the ow ne r s hi p r i ght s of thos e w ho ow ne d t he p ro p ert i e s pr i ort o the t aki ng s. W e di sa gree . T h e s e c tio n s o f

th e H e lm s - B u r to n A c t c i te d b y th e G le n s e x p lic itly
a c know l e dge t ha tt he C uba n gove r nm e nt , und er t h e l e a de r s hi p of F i de l C a s t r o,

“ confisca t ed t he prop er ty” of m i l l i on s of C ub an ci t i ze ns, tho usands of U ni t ed S t at es nat i on al s, and t ho usands m ore C ub ans w ho l at erbeca m e natural i ze d U ni t ed S t at es ci t i ze ns. 22 U
. S
. C
. § 6 08 1(3)(B ). W hi l e t he st atut e con dem ns these confi sc at i on s a s “w r o n g f u l,” it d o e s n o t p r o c la i m t h e m in e f f e c tiv e . I t is th e p u rp o s e o f th e s ta tu te to det er t hi rd party f

orei gn i nv es t ors f

rom tra ff i cki ng i n t he confi sc at ed prop er ty ( defi ned
as “ pu rc has[ i n g ] a n eq ui ty i nt er es ti n, m anag[i ng ] , or ent er [i ng ] i nt o j oi ntvent uresTh e Gl e ns repe ate dly statethat th e reis n o q

ue st io n th at Club M e d is a “ tr a ff ic ke r”in 3 confiscated prope rty , as defined by the statute. We nee d not decide whether this is true be causethe Glens do not asser

t a traf fickingclaim and there fore a deter mination of Club Med’s status under the statute is not necessa

ry to our dec ision in this case. B ut we do note that the Varadero proper ty at issue in this l itigation wa s owned by Cuban nationals at the time of its expropriation and thus may not be the proper subject of a tra ffickingclaim under the statute. See22 U.S.C. § 6081(5), (6) (def i n i n g “‘ trafficking ’ in confisc ated property” as tra nsactions in “property

and asse ts some of which we re c onfiscate d from United States nationals.”); 22 U.S
. C
. § 6081(11) ( “United States natio nals who werethevic tim s o f t he sec on fi sc atio ns sh ou ld be e nd ow e d wi th a judic ia l r e me dy in the cour ts of the United States . . . .”)
. 9 usi ng prop er ty a nd as se t s s om e of w h ich w er e c on fi sc at ed fr om U ni t ed S t at es
n a tio n a ls .” )
. See 22 U
. S
. C
. § 6081( 5) , ( 6) , ( 11)
. T hi s purpos e i s a c hi e ve d thr ough t he
es t abl i shm entof a new st atut ory r em edy a vai l abl e ( i f notsuspended) t o “ U ni t ed S t at es
na t i ona l s w ho w e r e the vi c t i m s of the s e c onf i s c a t i ons . . . [ t o] de ny tr a ffi ck ers any p r o f its f r o m e c o n o m ic a lly e x p lo itin g C a s tr o ’ s w r o n g f u l s e iz u r e s .” 2 2 U .S .C . § 60 81 (11). T he H el m s- B urt on A ct re fe rs t o the prop er ty i nt er es tthatform erow ners

3 of c onf i s c a t e d pr ope r ty now ha ve a s ow n ersh i p o f a “ c l a i m t o s uc h pr ope r ty . ” 22 U
. S
. C
. § 6 0 8 2 (a)(1 )(A ). W h en (o r i f) th e p o rt i o n o f T i t l e III th at allo w s p r iv a te l i t i gant s to b ri ng l aw sui t s bec om es ef fe ct i ve, ac t i on s broug htpu rs uantt o t he new st atu t o ry sch em e w o u l d b e act i o n s b r o u g h t“ o n a cl ai m t o th e co n fi scat ed p ro p ert y”
a ga i ns tt r a f

f i c ke r s i n t he pr ope r ty . 22 U
. S
. C
. § 6082( a ) ( 4)
. T hus , t he H e l m s - B ur t on A c t doe s not pr oc l a i m the i ne f f e c t i ve ne s s of the C uba n e xpr opr i a t i ons a s the G l ens
c la im th a t it d o e s ; a n d th e y c a n n o t r e ly o n th e s ta tu te to e s ta b lis h th e o w n e r s h ip
e le m e n t n e c e s s a r y to th e irs ta te la w c la im s a g a in s t C lu b M e d
.10

T he G l ens’ se cond ar gu m enti s that th e H elm s- B urt on A ctm akes i tcl ea r that t he a c tof

s t a t e doc tr i ne i s i n ap p l i c a bl e t o a l l a c t i ons br oughtby r i ght f ul ow ne r s of exprop ri at ed prop er t i es agai nstthi rd part i es occupyi ng and u si ng l and exp ropri at ed by t he C uba n gove r nm e nt . T he pl a i n l an g u ag e o f the s t a tut e doe s nots uppor tt he G l ens’ cont ent i on . S ec t i on 60 82 (a )( 6) of t he H el m s- B urt on A ctst at es on l y, “ N o cou rt of t he U ni t ed S t at es shal l decl i ne, base d u po n t he ac tof st at e doct ri ne, t o m ake a d et erm i n at i o n o n th e m eri t s i n an ac t i on br ought unde rpar agr aph (

1) .” 2 2 U .S .C . § 6082( a ) ( 6) ( e m pha s i s a dde d). P a r a gr a ph ( 1) i s the de f i ni t i on of

the c i vi l r e m e dy
cr ea t ed by t he st atut e, “ L i abi l i ty f or t ra ff i cki ng . ” See 2 2 U .S .C . § 6 0 8 2 ( a ) ( 1 )
. T h u s, t h e st atu t e ex p l i ci tly f o r e c l o ses u se o f t h e acto f st at e d o ct ri n e as a de f e ns e t o c a us e s of

a c t i on f o r l i ab i l i ty f

ort r a f f i c ki ng, t he s t a tut or y c a us e of a c t i on
c r e a t e d by 22 U
. S
. C
. § 6082( a ) ( 1)
. T he s t a tut e s a y s nothi ng a ta l l , how e ve r , r e ga r di ng th e a p p l ic a b ility o f

th e a c t o f

s ta te d o c tr in e in a n y o th e ra c tio n , b r o u g h t p u r s u a n t to
a ny ot he rs t a tut e or c om m on l a w . T he G l e ns a r gue tha tthe l e gi s l a t i ve f i ndi ngs s e c t i on ( 2 2 U .S .C . § 6 0 8 1 ) a n d e le c tio n o f r e m e d ie s s e c tio n ( 2 2 U .S
. C
. § 6 0 8 2 ( f ) ) in d ic a te th a t it w a s C o n g r e s s ’s in te n t to e lim in a te a p p lic a tio n o f th e a c t o f s ta te d o c tr in e in a ll
c a s e s c onc e r ni ng pr ope r ty e xpr opr i a t e d by t he C uba n gove r nm e nt . B ut ne i the rof t hos e s e c t i ons a ddr e s s e s t he a c tof s t a t e do ct ri n e. I n the f a c e of c l e a rl a ngua ge f orbi ddi ng a ppl i c a t i on of the doc tr i ne a s t o onl y t hos e “ L i a bi l i ty f ort r a ffi ck i ng”Of course , these considerations also relate to the Glens’ claim, addre ssed above, th atthe 4 Helms-B urton Act’s e lection of remedies provision re cognizes the viability of non-Title II Icause s 11 cl ai m s broug htpu rs uantt o T i t l e I II of t he st atute, w e d ec l i ne t o i nferthati tw as C o n g ress’ s i n t en tt o ab ro g at e u se o f th e d efen se as t o a m u ch b ro ad er cl ass o f cl ai m s. I n de cl i n i ng t o do s o, w e a r e c ons c i ous of t he rul e t ha t“ the s t a r t i ng poi ntf or i nt erpret i ng a s t atut e i s the l angu age of the st atut e i t se l f. A bsen t a cl ea rl y e xp re ss ed l egi sl at i ve i nt ent i on t o t he cont ra ry , thatl angu age m ust o rd in ar i l y be r egar ded as concl usi ve. ” C on sum erP rod. Sa f et y C om m ’n v. G T

E Sylvani a, Inc. , 447 U
. S
. 102, 1 0 8 , 1 0 0 S . C t. 2 0 5 1 , 2 0 5 6 ( 1 9 8 0 )
. F i nal l y, t he G l e ns ’ a s s e r t i on tha tH e l m s - B ur t on s i gna l s the r e pudi a t i on of Sabbat i no is p lain ly cont ra di ct ed by t he prol on ged d orm ancy of T i t l e I II ’ s f eder al
c a us e of a c t i on. A s not e d a bove , C ongr e s s ga ve the P r e s i de nt a uthor i ty t o s us pe nd t he fed eral rem ed y at si x -m o n th i n t erv al s i f “ su ch su sp en si o n i s ne c e s s ar y t o the nat i onal i nt er es t s of the U ni t ed St at es a n d w ill e x p e d ite a tr a n s it i o n t o d e m o c r a c y in C u b a .” 22 U
. S
. C
. § 6085( c ) ( 1) (B ) ( e m pha s i s a dde d)
. S i nc e 1996, P r e s i de nt s C l i nt on a nd B ush h ave r epea t edl y a nd w i tho uti nt er rupt i on suspended the ri gh tt o i ni t i at e T i t l e I II
s u its . T h u s , th e e x e c u tiv e b r a n c h h a s a f f ir m e d n o f

e w e rth a n tw e n ty tim e s th a t s u its
a ga i ns ta l l e ge d tr a f

f i c ke r s i n c onf

i s c a t e d C uba n pr ope r ty r em ai n , forthe t i m e be i ng, de t r i m e nt a l t o ourna t i ona l i nt e r e s ta nd f or e i gn pol i cy, a nd t he r e f or e s houl d notbe
a l l ow e d t o go f

or w a r d. 4of action. It simpl y makes no senseto contend that Congress a uthorized the President to suspend the newly

cre ated f

ederal re medy

for reasons of

national intere s t b ut as s umed that state law re me die s, lon gba

rre d (by the a c t of state do c trine ) o ut o f j udic ia l de ferenc e to t hepo lit ic a l branc he s’ deter mination of our national intere st in matters of fore ign policy, were “via ble.” 12 T hus , w e hol d tha tt he H e l m s - B ur t on A c tdoe s nota f f e c ta ny c ha nge t o t he
ex i st i ng l aw . T he ac tof st at e doct ri ne i s properl y app l i ed t o cl ai m s, l i ke t he G len s’, th at n ec es sa rily re q u ire U .S . co u rts to p as s o n th e leg ality o f th e C u b an g o v er n m en t’ s
ex p ro p ri at i o n o f p ro p ert y w i th i n C u b a fro m t h en -C u b an ci t i zen s. Sabbat i no , 3 7 6 U
. S.
a t 4 2 8 , 8 4 S . C t. a t 9 4 0 ; se e al so K i rk pa tri ck , 493 U
. S
. a t409, 110 S
. C t . a t707. V . CONCL US I ON B ec ause the ac tof st at e doct ri ne re qu i re s that the court s dee m val i d t he C ub an gove r nm e nt ’ s e xpr opr i a t i on of the r e a l pr ope r ty a ti s s ue i n thi s c a s e , the G l e ns c a nnot
m ai nt ai n t hei r c l ai m s f

or t re spas s a nd un

j ustenri chm ent agai nst C l ub M ed. D i sm i ss al
w as prop er . AF F I R ME D.