Chavez v. Dole Food Co.
| Decision Date | 11 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 13–4144.,13–4144. |
| Citation | 796 F.3d 261 |
| Parties | Tobias Bermudez CHAVEZ, et al., v. DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC., et al. Julio Abrego Abrego, et al., v. Dole Food Company, Inc., et al. Alvarado Alfaro Miguel Francisco, et al., v. Dole Food Company, Inc., et al. Jorge Luis Aguilar Mora, et al., v. Dole Food Company, Inc., et al. Edwin Aguero Jimenez, et al., v. Dole Food Company, Inc., et al. Gonzalez Araya Franklin, et al., v. Dole Food Company, Inc., et al. Tobias Bermudez Chavez, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
796 F.3d 261
Tobias Bermudez CHAVEZ, et al.
v.
DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC., et al.
Julio Abrego Abrego, et al.
v.
Dole Food Company, Inc., et al.
Alvarado Alfaro Miguel Francisco, et al.
v.
Dole Food Company, Inc., et al.
Jorge Luis Aguilar Mora, et al.
v.
Dole Food Company, Inc., et al.
Edwin Aguero Jimenez, et al.
v.
Dole Food Company, Inc., et al.
Gonzalez Araya Franklin, et al.
v.
Dole Food Company, Inc., et al.
Tobias Bermudez Chavez, et al., Appellants.
No. 13–4144.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued June 24, 2014.
Opinion Filed: Aug. 11, 2015.
Rehearing En Banc Granted, Opinion Vacated Sept. 22, 2015.
Scott M. Hendler, Esq., HendlerLaw, Austin, TX, Jonathan S. Massey, Esq. [Argued], Massey & Gail, Washington, DC, Michael L. Sensor, Esq., Perry & Sensor, Wilmington, DE, Counsel for Appellants.
Caitlin J. Halligan, Esq. [Argued], Gibson Dunn, New York, N.Y., Andrea E. Neuman, Esq., Gibson Dunn, Irvine, CA, Somers S. Price, Jr., Esq., Potter, Anderson & Corroon, Wilmington, DE, William E. Thomson, III, Esq., Gibson Dunn, Los Angeles, CA, Counsel for Appellees Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole Fresh Fruit, Standard Fruit Company, Standard Fruit and Steamship Company.
Michael L. Brem, Esq., Schirrmeister Diaz–Arrastia Brem, Houston, TX, Donald E. Reid, Esq., Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, Wilmington, DE, Counsel for Appellee Dow Chemical Co.
Timothy J. Houseal, Esq., Jennifer M. Kinkus, Esq., Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, Wilmington, DE, D. Ferguson McNiel, III, Esq., Vinson & Elkins, Houston, TX, Counsel for Appellee Occidental Chemical Corp.
John C. Phillips, Jr., Esq., Phillips, Goldman & Spence, Wilmington, DE, Counsel for Appellee AMVAC Chemical Corporation.
Kelly E. Farnan, Esq., Richards, Layton & Finger, Wilmington, DE, Counsel for Appellee Shell Oil Co.
Steven L. Caponi, Esq. [Argued], Blank Rome, Wilmington, DE, R. Jack Reynolds, Esq., Samuel E. Stubbs, Esq., Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw & Pittman, Houston, TX, Counsel for Appellees Chiquita Brands International Inc., Chiquita Brands, LLC, Chiquita Fresh North America, LLC.
Boaz S. Morag, Esq., Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, New York, N.Y., James W. Semple, Esq., Morris James, Wilmington, DE, Counsel for Del Monte Fresh Produce NA, INC.
BEFORE: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR., and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
I.
The “first-filed rule” is a well-established policy of the federal courts that “[i]n
all cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the court which first has possession of the subject must decide it.” Smith v. McIver, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat) 532, 535, 6 L.Ed. 152 (1824). This rule permits the district courts, in their discretion, to stay, transfer or dismiss cases that are duplicates of those brought previously in other federal fora. See, e.g., Cedars–Sinai Med. Ctr., et al., v. Shalala, 125 F.3d 765, 769 (9th Cir.1997). Today, we are asked to review the contours of this rule and the discretion of the district courts under it.
II.
This appeal is but a facet of procedurally intricate litigation concerning the alleged misuse of the pesticide dibromochloropropane (DBCP) on banana farms throughout Central America. Litigation has been ongoing in various federal and state courts for decades. Appellants—more than two hundred foreign agricultural workers—allege they were exposed to DBCP beginning in the 1960's and ending sometime in the 1980's. They maintain that improper exposure to this pesticide is to blame for the numerous health problems they have endured. Litigation began in 1993 with the filing of a putative class against the Dole Food Company, Inc., and other related companies in Texas state court. To our knowledge, no court—federal or state—has ever reviewed the actual merits of Appellants' claims. Instead, these matters have continued in various courts around the country on purely procedural questions. Not surprisingly, the procedural history associated with these cases is labyrinthine. Here, however, we confine our discussion to the procedural history of DBCP litigation that was recently undertaken in two states: Louisiana and Delaware.
A. The Louisiana Action: Chaverri et al. v. Dole Food Co., Inc., et al.
Numerous suits were filed in June of 2011 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Dole and others.1 Among other things, this lawsuit alleged claims sounding in negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty. The suits were consolidated and Dole moved for summary judgment.
On summary judgment, Dole argued that the Appellants' claims were time-barred under Louisiana's one-year statute of limitations. See La. Civ.Code Ann. art. 3492 (West, Westlaw through 2014 Regular Session). The District Court agreed and on September 17, 2012, granted Dole's motion for summary judgment. The matter was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on October 5, 2012. The appeal was actively prosecuted, with oral argument taking place on September 4, 2013. On September 19, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Louisiana District Court in an unpublished, per curiam opinion. See Chaverri v. Dole Food Co., 546 Fed.Appx. 409 (5th Cir.2014).
B. Delaware Federal Litigation: the Subject of This Dispute.
Meanwhile, on June 1, 2012, while Dole's motion for summary judgment was pending in Louisiana District Court, the Appellants filed several actions in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware. These Delaware actions were brought against the same defendants listed in the Louisiana litigation and contained the same causes of action.2 Importantly, Appellants admit that the actions filed in Delaware were “materially identical lawsuits” to those filed a year earlier in Louisiana. Appellants' Br. 12.
Dole Food Company filed a motion to dismiss the Delaware lawsuits on June 21, 2012, arguing for the application of the first-filed rule. This motion was joined by Dole Fresh Fruit Company, Standard Fruit Company, Standard Fruit & Steamship Company, and AMVAC Chemical Corporation (hereinafter “Dole Appellees”). The District Court agreed with the Dole Appellees and held that the first-filed rule applied to the Delaware cases. It then was faced with the discretionary decision whether to stay or dismiss the proceedings. The Delaware District Court dismissed the actions on August 21, 2012, reasoning that Appellants “filed in Delaware notwithstanding their choice to file first in Louisiana. Decisions have consequences; one fair bite at the apple is sufficient.” App. 19–20.
The day after the Delaware District Court dismissed Dole, Appellees Occidental Petroleum, Del Monte Produce N.A., Inc., Dow Chemical Co., and Shell Oil (hereinafter “Occidental Appellees”) likewise moved for dismissal based on the first-filed rule. On March 29, 2013, the District Court granted the Occidental Appellees motion as well. Although final judgment had been entered in the District Court for Louisiana, the District Court reasoned that the first-filed rule still applied because the case was on appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
While Appellants' appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Appellee Chiquita Brands International, Inc., moved to dismiss, arguing a lack of personal jurisdiction. Chiquita Brands LLC and Chiquita Fresh N.A. LLC moved for a dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and to dismiss based on res judicata and statute of limitations grounds.3 The Delaware District Court dismissed the claims against Chiquita Brands International on May 30, 2013, finding a lack of personal jurisdiction. Later, on September 19, 2013, the Delaware District Court dismissed the remaining two Chiquita defendants (Chiquita Brands, LLC and Chiquita Fresh N.A. LLC) based on the first-filed rule and closed the case.
III.
We review the District Court's decision to apply the first-filed rule for an abuse of discretion. E.E.O.C. v. Univ. of Pa., 850 F.2d 969, 972 (3d Cir.1988).4 This means we cannot disturb the District Court's decision “unless there is a definite and firm conviction that the [District Court] committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached.” Hanover Potato Prods., Inc. v. Shalala, 989 F.2d 123, 127 (3d Cir.1993) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). We
see no clear error of judgment here and will affirm the District Court.
A. The First–Filed Rule
The first-filed rule counsels deference to the suit that was filed first, when two lawsuits involving the same issues and parties are pending in separate federal district courts. Univ. of Pa., 850 F.2d at 971. We have been clear: where there is federal concurrent jurisdiction over a matter, “the court which first ha[d] possession of the subject must decide it.” Id. (quoting Crosley Corp. v. Hazeltine Corp., 122 F.2d 925, 929 (3d Cir.1941) (internal citations and quotations marks omitted)). Appellants concede that they filed duplicative actions in the Delaware District Court, stating that the Delaware cases were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chavez v. Dole Food Co.
...jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). We exercise jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.37 See Chavez v. Dole Food Co. , 796 F.3d 261 (3d Cir. 2015), reh'g en banc granted , opinion vacated (Sept. 22, 2015). Judge Fuentes dissented from the original panel decision. Se......
-
Chaverri v. Dole Food Co.
...J. Rule 60(b)(6) ).20 Chavez v. Dole Food Co. , 2012 WL 3600307, at *1-2 (D. Del. Aug. 21, 2012).21 Id . at *1.22 Chavez v. Dole Food Co. , 796 F.3d 261 (3d Cir. 2015).23 Chavez v. Dole Food Co. , 836 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2016).24 Id . at 220-21 (emphasis in original).25 Marquinez v. Dole Food......
- Crawford v. Cuomo
-
Transp. Insuance Co. v. Am. Harvest Baking Co.
...corporation has been vacated upon order of the Circuit to hear the case in front of the en banc court. See Chavez v. Dole Food Co., Inc., 796 F.3d 261, 269-70 (3d Cir. 2015), vacated pending reh'g en banc. Regardless, the panel decision in Chavez was not directly applicable to the issue of ......