Delgado v. Shell Oil Co.

Document Cited authorities (84) Cited in (145) Precedent Map Related
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
CitationDelgado v. Shell Oil Co., 890 F. Supp. 1324 (S.D. Tex. 1995)
Decision Date11 July 1995
Docket NumberH-94-3248,Civ. A. No. H-94-1337,H-94-3451,H-95-1356 and H-95-1407.,H-94-1359
PartiesFranklin Rodriguez DELGADO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SHELL OIL CO., et al., Defendants. Jorge Colindres CARCAMO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SHELL OIL CO., et al., Defendants. Ramon Rodriguez RODRIGUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SHELL OIL COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Manuel Antonio Balderamos ERAZO, Plaintiff, v. SHELL OIL CO., et al., Defendants. Juan Ramon VALDEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SHELL OIL CO., et al., Defendants. Isae CARCAMO, Plaintiff, v. SHELL OIL CO., et al., Defendants.

890 F. Supp. 1324

Franklin Rodriguez DELGADO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SHELL OIL CO., et al., Defendants.

Jorge Colindres CARCAMO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SHELL OIL CO., et al., Defendants.

Ramon Rodriguez RODRIGUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SHELL OIL COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

Manuel Antonio Balderamos ERAZO, Plaintiff, v. SHELL OIL CO., et al., Defendants.

Juan Ramon VALDEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SHELL OIL CO., et al., Defendants.

Isae CARCAMO, Plaintiff, v. SHELL OIL CO., et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. Nos. H-94-1337, H-94-1359, H-94-3248, H-94-3451, H-95-1356 and H-95-1407.

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division.

July 11, 1995.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Fred Misko, Charles Siegel, Misko, Howie & Sweeney, Dallas, TX, Stephen D. Susman, James McCartt, Michael A. Lee, Susman Godfrey, Houston, TX, Harold W. Nix, Edward L. Hohn, Harold Nix & Associates, Daingerfield, TX, Wayne Fisher, Jim Huguenard, Fisher, Gallagher & Lewis, Houston, TX, John McEldowney, Greer, Herz & Adams, Galveston, TX, James W. Bradford, Jr., Angleton, TX, Joseph C. Kohn, Myles H. Malman, Martin J. D'Urso, Kohn, Nast & Graf, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, Thomas H. Hart, III, Alkon, Rhea & Hart, St. Croix, VI, Ramon Garcia, Dalinda G. Quintana, Law Office of Ramon Garcia, P.C., Edinburg, TX, Enrique Alvino Garza, Hebronville, TX, J.A. "Tony" Canales, Canales & Simonson, Corpus Christi, TX, Vaughn O. Stewart, Lake Jackson, TX, for plaintiffs.

John L. Hill, Jr., J. Michael Dorman, Richard Staff, James E. Essig, Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill & Laboon, Burt Ballanfant, Shell Oil Co., Houston, TX, Morris Atlas, Lisa Powell, Atlas & Hall, L.L.P., McAllen, TX, Richard R. Gonzales, Hebronville, TX, Robert W. Weber, Atchley, Russell, Waldrop & Hlavinka, L.L.P., Texarkana, TX, John R. Gilbert, Gilbert, Gilbert & Boyd, P.C., Angleton, TX, for Shell Oil Co.

D. Ferguson McNeil, Vinson & Elkins, Charles W. Schwartz, Houston, TX, Stephen C. Lewis, Charles M. O'Connor, Mariah Baird, Landels, Ripley & Diamond, San Francisco, CA, Michael M. Phillips, Angleton, TX, T. John Ward, Calvin Capshaw, Brown, McCarrol & Oaks Hartline, Longview, TX, for Occidental Chemical Corp.

Terence M. Murphy, James S. Teater, Michael L. Rice, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Dallas, TX, Wiley Thomas, Angleton, TX, for Standard Fruit Co., Dole Fresh Fruit Co.

F. Walter Conrad, Michael Brem, Baker & Botts, L.L.P., Houston, TX, Patrick Reilly, Galveston, TX, J.G. Adami, Jr., Perkins, Oden, Warbuxton, McNeill, Adami & Paisley, Alice, TX, John R. Gilbert, Gilbert, Gilbert & Boyd, P.C., Angleton, TX, Eduardo R. Rodriguez, Rodriguez, Colvin & Chaney, Brownsville, TX, Robert Rolston, Bird Old III, Old, Rolston & Old, Mount Pleasant, TX, T. John Ward, Calvin Capshaw, Brown, McCarrol & Oaks Hartline, Longview, TX, for Dow Chemical Co.

Samuel E. Stubbs, William D. Wood, Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Chiquita Brands and Chiquita Brands Intern., Inc.

James J. Juneau, Pamela K. Estes, Strasburger & Price, L.L.P., Houston, TX, Robert T. Greig, Howard S. Zelbo, Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, New York City, for Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A. and Del Monte Tropical Fruit Co.

Edward F. Fernandes, Solar & Fernandes, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Programa Nacional de Banano.

Scott M. Hendler, The Hendler Law Firm, Austin, TX, Don Weitinger, Carrie Weitinger, Weitinger & Weitinger, Houston, TX, Michael Brickman, Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, P.A., Charleston, SC, for intervenors.

Jeffrey H. Marsh, Mattingly & Marsh, Houston, TX, Robert Crow, Boornazian, Jensen & Garthe, Oakland, CA, for Amvac Chemical Corp.

Laurence E. Best, Best, Koeppel & Klotz, Houston, TX, Laurence E. Best, Best, Koeppel & Klotz, New Orleans, LA, for intervenors (Hondurans).

Thomas J. Brandt, Bradley W. Cole, Robert A. Shults, Sheinfeld, Maley & Kay, P.C., Houston, TX, Peter R. Paden, Teitelbaum, Hillde, Rodman, Paden & Hibsher, P.C., New York City, for third- and fourth-party defendants, Dead Sea Bromine Co., Ltd., Bromine Compounds, Ltd., and Ameribrom, Inc.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LAKE, District Judge. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                                                      Page
                I. Introduction                                                            1335
                II. Parties, Posture, and Pending Pleadings                                           1336
                    A. All Roads Lead to Houston                                                      1336
                       1. Delgado v. Shell Oil Co., No. H-94-1337                                     1336
                       2. Jorge Carcamo v. Shell Oil Co., No. H-94-1359                               1337
                       3. Rodriguez v. Shell Oil Co., H-94-3248                                       1338
                       4. Erazo v. Shell Oil Co., H-94-3451                                           1338
                       5. Valdez v. Shell Oil Co., H-95-1356 &amp
                        Isae Carcamo v. Shell Oil Co., H-95-1407                                       1339
                   B. Common Contentions and Uncommon Questions                                       1340
                      1. Issues concerning the propriety of removal                                   1340
                      2. Issues concerning dismissal of parties and actions                           1341
                III. Removal and Remand                                                               1341
                     A. Standard of Review                                                            1341
                     B. Removal by Dead Sea                                                           1342
                        1. Fraudulent joinder                                                         1342
                        2. Prematurity                                                                1343
                           a. What law governs?                                                       1343
                           b. When does a defendant's right to remove mature?                         1343
                           c. Did Dead Sea have a mature right to remove?                             1344
                     C. Removal by Shell                                                              1346
                        1. Medical monitoring                                                         1346
                        2. Treaty rights                                                              1347
                        3. Foreign relations                                                          1348
                     D. Is Remand Warranted?                                                          1349
                IV. Dismissal Motions                                                                 1351
                    A. Which Dismissal Motion Should Be Resolved First?                               1351
                    B. Have Defendants Waived the Right to Seek Forum Non Conveniens
                        Dismissal?                                                                    1351
                       1. Have defendants waived the right to seek dismissal by relying on
                            Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 71.031 as a basis for federal
                            jurisdiction?                                                             1351
                       2. Have defendants waived the right to seek dismissal by pursuing
                            transfers of several cases to this court from other districts pursuant
                            to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)?                                              1352
                       3. Did Dow waive the right to seek dismissal by initiating a declaratory
                            judgment action in the United States District Court for the
                            Northern District of Texas?                                               1353
                       4. Have defendants waived the right to seek dismissal by participating
                           in discovery?                                                              1355
                    C. Forum Non Conveniens                                                           1355
                       1. Standard of review                                                          1355
                       2. Availability of an adequate alternative forum                               1356
                          a. Availability                                                             1356
                          b. Adequacy                                                                 1357
                              i. Burkina Faso                                                         1358
                             ii. Costa Rica                                                           1358
                            iii. Dominica                                                             1359
                             iv. Ecuador                                                              1359
                              v. Guatemala                                                            1361
                             vi. Honduras                                                             1361
                            vii. Ivory Coast                                                          1361
                           viii. Nicaragua                                                            1362
                             ix. Panama                                                               1362
                
                                                                                      Page
                              x. The Philippines                                                      1362
                             xi. Saint Lucia                                                          1365
                            xii. Saint Vincent                                                        1365
                      c. Conclusion                                                                   1365
                   3. Private interest factors                                                        1365
                      a. The relevant deference                                                       1365
                      b. Balancing the interests                                                      1366
                          i. Relative ease of access to sources of proof                              1366
                         ii. Availability of compulsory
...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
69 cases
  • Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • May 30, 2001
    ...See Texaco App., Ex. 10, Affidavit of Dr. Enrique Ponce y Carbo ("Ponce y Carbo Aff.") at ¶¶ 12-14; see also Delgado v. Shell Oil Co., 890 F.Supp. 1324, 1359-60 (S.D.Tex.1995), aff'd, 231 F.3d 165 (5th Cir.2000). Plaintiffs concede as much, but nevertheless assert, through their "legal expe......
  • Arbitration between Trans Chem. Ltd. and China Nat.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • July 7, 1997
    ...of § 1603(b)(2)'s criteria it held that NEK was not a foreign state within the meaning of § 1603(a). 40. See Delgado v. Shell Oil Co., 890 F.Supp. 1324, 1340 n. 33 (S.D.Tex.1995) (citing Gould, Inc. v. Pechiney Ugine Kuhlmann, 853 F.2d 445, 449-50 (6th Cir.1988), and General Electric Capita......
  • Chavez v. Occidental Chem. Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • January 10, 2018
    ...of this case is baroque. The Court first reviews the two-decade-long history of the putative class actions (styled as Carcamo and, later, Delgado ) brought by plaintiffs bringing similar claims against defendants including Occidental. As explained, these cases have proceeded in Texas, Costa......
  • Roth v. Kiewit Offshore Services, Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • December 4, 2008
    ...lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Burks v. Amerada Hess Corp., 8 F.3d 301, 303 (5th Cir.1993); see also Delgado v. Shell Oil Company, 890 F.Supp. 1324, 1341 (S.D.Tex.1995). When considering a motion to remand the removing party bears the burden of showing that removal was proper. See......
    • Get Started for Free
2 firm's commentaries
5 books & journal articles
  • Parochial procedure.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 69 No. 4, April 2017
    • April 1, 2017
    ...see, e.g., Chevron Corp. v. Naranjo, 667 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 2012), and the DBCP pesticide cases, see, e.g., Delgado v. Shell Oil Co., 890 F. Supp. 1324 (S.D. Tex. 1995), affd, 231 F.3d 165 (5th Cir. 2000). In both cases, U.S. district courts dismissed the complaints for forum non conveniens.......
  • ILLIBERAL LAW IN AMERICAN COURTS.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 168 No. 6, May 2020
    • May 1, 2020
    ...accept the opinion of the attorney general of Mexico as an official declaration by that government...."), and Delgado v. Shell Oil Co., 890 F. Supp. 1324, 1363 (S.D. Tex. 1 9 95 ) ("Plaintiffs argue that this opinion [from the attorney general of the Philippines] is conclusive as to the sco......
  • Towards global convenience, fairness, and judicial economy: an argument in support of conditional forum non conveniens dismissals before determining jurisdiction in United States federal district courts.
    • United States
    • Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law Vol. 41 No. 4, October 2008
    • October 1, 2008
    ...problems can ever be solved by merely hiring more judges). (6.) See Brokerwood, 104 F. App'x. at 378-79. (7.) Delgado v. Shell Oil Co., 890 F. Supp. 1324, 1335 (S.D. Tex. 1995). (8.) Id. at 1369; Brokerwood, 104 F. App'x. at 379 n.2, (9.) Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp.,......
  • Christina Weston, the Enforcement Loophole: Judgment-recognition Defenses as a Loophole to Corporate Accountability for Conduct Abroad
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory International Law Reviews No. 25-1, March 2011
    • Invalid date
    ...denied, 2010 WL 571806 (S.D. Fla. 2010).Id. at 1311–12 (reciting case history).Id. (reciting case history).Delgado v. Shell Oil Co., 890 F. Supp. 1324, 1335 (S.D. Tex. 1995).114 Id. at 1362, 1372–73.Osorio, 665 F. Supp. 2d at 1311–12.Id. at 1312.the Southern District of Florida.117 In holdi......
    • Get Started for Free
Add as a preferred source on Google