Chavez et al v. Chiquita Brands LLC, et al

Filing 81

MEMORANDUM OPINION re 76 MOTION to Dismiss Based upon Claims Pursuant to First Filed Rule and Rule 12(b)(6) Based on Res Judicata and Statute of Limitations. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 9/19/2013. Associated Cases: 1:12-cv-00697-RGA et al.(nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
TOBIAS BERMUDEZ CHAVEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 12-697-RGA

V.

DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

JULIO ABREGO ABREGO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 12-698-RGA

v.
DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

ALVARADO ALFARO MIGUEL
FRANCISCO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 12-699-RGA

v.
DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

JORGE LUIS AGUILAR MORA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 12-700-RGA

V.

DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

1

EDWIN AGUERO JIMINEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 12-701-RGA

v.
DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

GONZALEZ ARAYA FRANKLIN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 12-702-RGA

v.
DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM
In these consolidated cases, Plaintiffs brought causes of action against twelve defendants

for injuries stemming from alleged misuse of dibromochloropropane ("DBCP") on banana
plantations in Panama, Ecuador, Guatemala and/or Costa Rica. Plaintiffs filed their claims
against the same Defendants in the Eastern District ofLouisiana. 1 Based on the first-filed rule,
the Court dismissed the cases against five defendants in August 21, 2012. (D.I. 22, 23). 2 On
September 17, 2012, the Eastern District of Louisiana granted Defendants' motions for summary
judgment based on the statute of limitations, and dismissed Plaintiffs' claims there with
prejudice. Chaverri v. Dole Food Co., Inc., 896 F.Supp.2d 556 (E.D. La. 2012). Plaintiffs
appealed to the Fifth Circuit, and that appeal remains pending. (D.I. 56 at 3). Meanwhile, all

1

I omit years of procedural history that are irrelevant to the matters now at issue.

2

The citations are to the record in Civil Action No. 12-697. The record in each ofNos.
12-698/699/700/701/702 is substantially the same.
2

remaining Defendants except the three Chiquita defendants ("Chiquita") moved to dismiss based
on the first-filed rule, which the Court granted on March 29, 2013. (D.I. 71). Thereafter, the
Court granted a motion to dismiss against one of the Chiquita defendants (Chiquita Brands
International, Inc.) for lack of personal jurisdiction, on May 30, 2013. (D.I. 73). Thus, two
Chiquita defendants remain.
A similar DBCP case with different parties has also been pending in the Delaware state
courts. In August, 2012, the Delaware Superior Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
based on the statute of limitations, ruling, in part, that the statute of limitations was tolled even
though the original filing was in another jurisdiction, based on litigation originating in a Texas
state court previously filed by one of the Delaware state court plaintiffs. See Blanco v. AMVAC
Chern. Corp., 2012 WL 3194412 (Del. Super. Aug. 8, 2012). The Superior Court then certified

for interlocutory appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court the issue of whether Delaware
recognizes cross jurisdictional tolling. (D.I. 36 at Ex. C). The Delaware Supreme Court
affirmed that Delaware recognizes the concept of cross-jurisdictional tolling. See Dow Chemical
Corp. v. Blanco, 67 A.3d 392, 399 (Del. 2013).

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 76) and related briefing (D.I. 78,
79, 80). Defendants' motion is based on the first filed rule, res judicata, and the statute of
limitations. Plaintiffs respond that many plaintiffs have not filed actions in Louisiana, but in the
cases under consideration (that is, Nos. 12-697 through 12-698), the plaintiffs in Lousiana are
identical to the plaintiffs in Delaware. 3 Plaintiffs also respond that Dow v. Blanco is dispositive

3

There are similar actions in Nos. 12-695 and 12-696, but they are not implicated by the
Defendants' Motion.
3

on the statute oflimitations question. Because I decide this motion on the first-filed rule, I do not
reach the other issues.
As the Court explained in granting the second motion to dismiss based on the first-filed
rule, the litigation in the Eastern District of Louisiana remains pending so long as the appellate
process continues. (D.I. 71). One ofthe goals ofthe first-filed rule is to avoid separate appeals
based on conflicting rulings. Crosley Corp. v. Hazeltine Corp., 122 F.2d 925, 930 (3d Cir.
1941). Plaintiffs appealed, continuing to avail themselves of the entirely fair process in the
venue they chose, and one bite at the apple remains sufficient. (D.I. 56 at 3; D.I. 22).
Here, every other Defendant has had their claims dismissed based on the first-filed rule
based on the litigation in the Eastern District of Louisiana. Chiquita is also a defendant in the
Eastern District of Louisiana case and joined the motion for summary judgment granted by that
Court. Chaverri, 896 F.Supp.2d at 558 & n.1. Therefore, the first filed rule applies equally to the
identical claims brought against Chiquita in this litigation.
An appropriate order will be entered.

September[_, 2013

4