concluding that Cuban refugees could not “obtain justice” from post- revolutionary Cuban courts such that the district court’s forum non conveniens dismissal in favor of those courts was inappropriate
How later courts described this case
- concluding that Cuban refugees could not “obtain justice” from post- revolutionary Cuban courts such that the district court’s forum non conveniens dismissal in favor of those courts was inappropriate
- placing burden on defendant to show that plaintiffs could “obtain justice in the courts of Cuba,” rather than “embarking] upon an international sea of judicial notice of the treatment of those who flee their native land and return to Castro’s jurisdiction.”
- holding that Fidel Castro’s Cuba was an inadequate alternative forum for a Cuban refugee
- finding that political refugees could receive a fair hearing in Cuba
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
On Petition for Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
In reversing the dismissal of this complaint, and remanding for further proceedings, we noted then, and repeat now, that residual issues raised on the present status of the pleadings are properly determinable by the District Court on the merits. We carefully considered and reviewed the argument of appellee that the doctrine of forum non conveniens or Act of State doctrine, one or the other, barred further litigation. Our review of that holding in the light of the reiterated contentions of appellee in this petition does not require further hearing.
Appellee further suggests here that the Bretton Woods Agreement and certain Cuban currency control statutes require dismissal of this complaint. Since the entry of our opinion in this case this Court has on November 7, 1962 rejected this contention in Pan American Life Insurance Company v. Inocencio Blanco, 311 F.2d 424 .
The petition for rehearing is
Denied.