in re chiquita brands: motion to stay mandate

Case No. 12-14898-BB

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________________

IN RE: CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ALIEN TORT

STATUTE AND SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION

CASE NO. 08-01916-MD-MARRA

This Brief Relates to District Court Case Numbers:

No. 08-80465, No. 10-80652, No. 11-80404, No. 11-80405

__________________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

(The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra)

_________________________________________

MOTION FOR STAY OF MANDATE

_________________________________________

Paul Wolf

P.O. Box 46213

Denver, CO 80201

(202) 431-6986

[email protected]

Counsel for Does 1-144, Does

1-976, Does 1-677, and Does

1-254

October 6, 2014

Case: 12-14898 Date Filed: 10/06/2014 Page: 1 of 20

Pursuant to FRAP 41(d)(2), the Doe Plaintiffs move the Court for a

stay of the mandate pending review of a Petition for Certiorari by the U.S.

Supreme Court. We will not repeat the arguments already briefed in any

detail, and only refer to them in the context of the standards for a stay set

forth in FRAP 41(d)(2). The Appellant, Chiquita Brands International,

opposes the motion.

I. The petition for certiorari would present a substantial question of

law.

The petition for certiorari would present a substantial question of law

and could resolve the split with the 4th Circuit in Al Shimari v. CACI

Premier Tech. Inc., 2014 WL 2922840 (4th Cir. June 30, 2014).

Specifically, the Plaintiff-Appellees allege a criminal conspiracy in the

United States, by the Board of Directors of a U.S. corporation, which has

been admitted in a guilty plea in a criminal case in D.C. District Court. It is

hard to imagine any case with stronger contacts with the territory of the

U.S., where the place of injury was not itself on U.S. soil.1

1 The Al Shimari case did involve substantial contact with the United States

military, but nearly all of it was in Iraq. The al Shimari case involved a

highly unusual situation with private companies allegedly torturing prisoners

in Abu Ghraib, Iraq. The Chiquita case presents a paradigm fact pattern, of

individuals in the United States planning and executing a criminal

conspiracy that resulted in injuries abroad. Since nearly all of the facts are


The Panel's holding would bar any suit where the place of injury is

outside the U.S. Only Justices Alito and Thomas agree with the 11th Circuit

about this. Our opening brief in the instant case was largely an analysis of

the various opinions in Kiobel. The split in the Supreme Court shows that

there is a better than normal chance that this case will be chosen for review.

Courts around the country are granting leave to amend on similar

theories, in cases without the same level of factual support. We outlined

them in our Petition for Rehearing en Banc, filed August 4, 2014. Since

then, the national trend has continued. On September 4, the 9th Circuit

granted leave to amend in Doe v. Nestle, No. 10-56739 (9th Cir. Sept. 4,

2014) to afford the plaintiffs an opportunity to allege conduct that "touched

and concerned" the territory of the US. Then on September 23rd, Judge

Lamberth in the D.C. District Court granted the plaintiffs in Does et al v.

Exxon Mobil Corporation, 01-cv-1357, 07-cv-1022 (D.D.C. Sept 23, 2014)

leave to amend for the same reason. If the Exxon Mobil plaintiffs

sufficiently allege conduct within the United States, their ATS claims will

not be defeated on the basis of the presumption against extraterritoriality.

Id. at 25-26. The D.C. District Court also held that such an amendment

would not necessarily be futile, depite the fact that the injuries in Exxon

admitted, Chiquita is a very simple and clean case, and a good one to use to

establish a clear Supreme Court precedent.


Mobil occurred in Indonesia. Id. This is inconsistent with the Panel's

holding in Chiquita. The Eleventh Circuit itself analyzed the contacts with

the US in Baloco et al v. Drummond, No. 12-15268 (11th Cir. Sept. 23,

2014), albeit in a hypothetical way, since the element of intent was never

alleged with respect to anyone inside the United States. The Chiquita

decision remains an outlier in this developing area of law.

II. There is good cause for a stay of the mandate.

If the mandate is not stayed, the instant case will not be over. An

important issue yet to be resolved is whether state law claims can have

extraterritorial application. This was raised sua sponte by the District Court

in the interlocutory appeal, and is also the topic of a separate cross-appeal by

other Plaintiff groups, in which the Doe Plaintiffs joined.2 No motion has

ever been made to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims based on Colombian law.3 It

2 The Plaintiff-Cross-Appellants rely primarily on Linder v. Portocarrero,

963 F.2d 332, 333, 336 (11th Cir. 1992), where this Circuit held that torture

and murder in Nicaraguan was actionable in Florida under Florida state tort

law. Here the case is even stronger, since so much domestic conduct is

alleged. 3 A motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens is pending in the District

Court. However, as Judge Lamberth found in the Exxon Mobil case,

Colombia is not an adequate forum because not all defendants can be sued

there. Other reasons to deny dismissal include corruption in the Colombian

legal system and the danger posed by bringing a case that potentially

threatens Colombian banana companies, which would not hestitate to use

violence to defend themselves. The case is also seven years old, and has

already seen one venue transfer, at Chiquita's request.


may be that the Court can decide these issues independently of whatever the

Supreme Court does, but there is good cause to expect them to conflict in

some way. It seems prudent, and that good cause exists to stay the mandate

while we petition the Supreme Court for Certiorari, and while the Eleventh

Circuit decides the issue of the extraterritorial application of state tort law.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should stay the mandate for up to

90 days, while the Plaintiffs petition the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari

review, and then for as long as it takes for the Supreme Court to respond.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Paul Wolf

____________________________________

Paul Wolf DC Bar #480285

Attorney for Does 1-144, 1-976, 1-677, 1-254

PO Box 46213

Denver CO 80201

(202) 431-6986

[email protected]

October 6, 2014


CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS

Counsel certifies that, to the best of his knowledge, the following is a

complete list of the trial judge(s), all attorneys, persons, associations of

persons, firms, partnerships, or corporations (noted with its stock symbol if

publicly listed) that have an interest in the outcome of the particular case on

appeal, including subsidiaries, conglomerates, affiliates, and parent

corporations, and other identifiable legal entities related to a party, known to

Appellees, are as follows:

1. The individual plaintiffs are listed in the Complaints as filed in the

Southern District of Florida in Case Nos. 08-80465, 10-80652, 11-80404,

and 11-80405.

2. Additional interested parties are:

Agrcola Longav Limitada

Agrcola Santa Marta Limitada

Agroindustria Santa Rosa de Lima, S.A.

Alamo Land Company

Alsama, Ltd.


American Produce Company

Americana de Exportacin S.A.

Anacar LDC

Arvelo, Jos E.

Associated Santa Maria Minerals

B C Systems, Inc.

Baird, Bruce

Barbush Development Corp.

Bienes Del Rio, S.A.

BlackRock, Inc. (NYSE: BLK)

Blue Fish Holdings Establishment

Bocas Fruit Co. L.L.C.

In Re: Chiquita Brands Intl., Inc.

Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Fort Lauderdale

Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Miami


Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, New York

Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Orlando

Brundicorpi S.A.

Cadavid Londoo, Paula

Carrillo, Arturo J.

C.C.A. Fruit Service Company Limited

CB Containers, Inc.

Centro Global de Procesamiento Chiquita, S.R.L.

Charagres, Inc., S.A.

Childs, Robert

Chiquita (Canada) Inc.

Chiquita (Shanghai) Enterprise Management Consulting Co., Ltd.

Chiquita Banana Company B.V.

Chiquita Brands International Foundation

Chiquita Brands International Srl


Chiquita Brands International, Inc. (NYSE: CQB)

Chiquita Brands L.L.C.

Chiquita Central Europe, s.r.o.

Chiquita Compagnie des Bananes

Chiquita Deutschland GmbH

Chiquita Food Innovation B.V.

Chiquita for Charities

Chiquita Fresh B.V.B.A.

Chiquita Fresh Espaa, S.A.

Chiquita Fresh North America L.L.C.

Chiquita Fruit Bar (Belgium) BVBA

Chiquita Fruit Bar (Germany) GmbH

Chiquita Fruit Bar GmbH

Chiquita Frupac B.V.

Chiquita Hellas Anonimi Eteria Tropikon Ke Allon Frouton


Chiquita Hong Kong Limited

Chiquita International Services Group N.V.

Chiquita Italia, S.p.A.

Chiquita Logistic Services El Salvador Ltda.

Chiquita Logistic Services Guatemala, Limitada

Chiquita Logistic Services Honduras, S.de RL

Chiquita Melon Packers, Inc.

Chiquita Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V.

Chiquita Nature and Community Foundation

Chiquita Nordic Oy

Chiquita Norway As

Chiquita Poland Spolka Z ograniczona odpowiedzialnoscia

Chiquita Portugal Venda E Comercializaao De Fruta,

Unipessoal Lda

Chiquita Relief Fund - We Care


Chiquita Shared Services

Chiquita Singapore Pte. Ltd.

Chiquita Slovakia, S.r.o.

Chiquita Sweden AB

Chiquita Tropical Fruit Company B.V.

Chiquita UK Limited

ChiquitaStore.com L.L.C.

Chiriqui Land Company

CILPAC Establishment

Coast Citrus Distributors Holding Company

Cohen, Millstein, Sellers & Toll, PLLC

Collingsworth, Terrence P.

Compaa Agrcola de Nipe, S.A.

Compaa Agrcola de Rio Tinto

Compaa Agrcola del Guayas


Compaa Agrcola e Industrial Ecuaplantation, S.A.

Compaa Agrcola Sancti-Spiritus, S.A.

Compaa Bananera Atlntica Limitada

Compaa Bananera Guatemateca Independinte, S.A.

Compaa Bananera La Estrella, S.A.

Compaa Bananera Los Laureles, S.A.

Compaa Bananera Monte Blanco, S.A.

Compaa Caronas, S.A.

Compaa Cubana de Navegacin Costanera

Compaa Frutera Amrica S.A.

Compaa La Cruz, S.A.

Compaa Mundimar, S.A.

Compaa Productos Agrcolas de Chiapas, S.A. de C.V.

Compaa Tropical de Seguros, S.A.

Conrad & Scherer LLP


Costa Frut S.A.C.

Covington & Burling LLP

Danone Chiquita Fruits SAS

Davies, Patrick

De La Calle Restrepo, Jos Miguel

De La Calle Londoo y Posada Abogados

DeLeon, John

Dimensional Fund Advisors LP

Duraiswamy, Shankar

Dyer, Karen C.

Earthrights, International, Inc.

Exportadora Chiquita - Chile Ltda.

Exportadora de Frutas Frescas Ltda.

Financiera Agro-Exportaciones Limitada

Financiera Bananera Limitada


FMR LLC

Fresh Express Incorporated

Fresh Holding C.V.

Fresh International Corp.

Frutas Elegantes, S. de R.L. de C.V.

Fundacin Para El Desarrollo de Comunidades Sostenibles en el

Valle de Sula

G & V Farms, LLC

G W F Management Services Ltd.

Garland, James

Girardi, Thomas V.

Gould, Kimberly

Gravante, Jr., Nicholas A.

Great White Fleet Liner Services Ltd.

Great White Fleet Ltd.


Green, James K.

Guralnick, Ronald S.

Hall, John

Heaton Holdings Ltd.

Heli Abel Torrado y Asociados

Hemisphere XII Investors Limited

Hospital La Lima, S.A. de C.V.

Ilara Holdings, Inc.

Inversiones Huemul Limitada

James K. Green, P.A.

Jimenez Train, Magda M.

Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A.

King, William B.

Lack, Walter J.

Law Firm of Jonathan C. Reiter


Law Offices of Chavez-DeLeon

Leon, The Honorable Richard J.

Markman, Ligia

Marra, The Honorable Kenneth A.

Martin, David

Martinez Resly, Jaclyn

McCawley, Sigrid S.

Mosier, Mark

Mozabanana, Lda.

Parker Waichman LLP

Pras Cadavid Abogados

Pras, Juan Carlos

Procesados IQF, S.A. de C.V.

Processed Fruit Ingredients, BVBA

Promotion et Developpement de la Culture Bananiere


Puerto Armuelles Fruit Co., Ltd.

Rapp, Cristopher

Reiter, Jonathan C.

Ronald Guralnick, P.A.

Scarola, Jack

Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.

Seguridad Colosal, S.A.

Servicios Chiquita Chile Limitada

Servicios de Logstica Chiquita, S.A.

Servicios Logsticos Chiquita, S.R.L

Servicios Proem Limitada

Skinner, William

Sperling, Jonathan

Spiers N.V.

Sprague, Ashley M.


St. James Investments, Inc.

Stubbs, Sidney

Tela Railroad Company Ltd.

The Vanguard Group

TransFRESH Corporation

UNIPO G.V., S.A.

V.F. Transportation, L.L.C.

Verdelli Farms, Inc.

Western Commercial International Ltd.

Wichmann, William J.

Wiesner & Asociados Ltda. Abogados

Wiesner, Eduardo A.

Wilkins, Robert

Wolf, Paul

Wolosky, Lee S.


Zack, Stephen N

Zhejiang Chiquita-Haitong Food Company Limited

Zuleta, Alberto

/s/ Paul Wolf

____________________

Paul Wolf DC Bar # 480285

Attorney for Doe Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 6th day of October, 2014, I filed the

foregoing document with the clerk of the court through the Court's

Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system, which will send notification to the

attorneys of record for all other parties in this litigation. I further certify

that all parties required to be served have been served.

/s/ Paul Wolf

____________________

Paul Wolf DC Bar # 480285

Attorney for Doe Plaintiffs


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

____________________________________

)

IN RE: CHIQUITA BRANDS )

INTERNATIONAL, INC. ALIEN TORT ) Case No. 12-14898-BB

STATUTE AND SHAREHOLDER )

DERIVATIVE LITIGATION )

____________________________________)

Proposed Order

Upon consideration of Appellee Doe Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay

Mandate, and all oppositions and replies, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Mandate of the Court in this appeal, issued September

4, 2014, shall be stayed for a period of 90 days from that date, and then until

the Supreme Court has ruled on Appellees' Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Signed this ____ day of October, 2014.

______________________

U.S. Circuit Judge


in re chiquita brands: motion to stay mandate

Documents