Florida Evergreen Foliage v. Ei Du Pont De Nemours, 98-2256-Civ.
| Citation | 135 F.Supp.2d 1271 |
| Decision Date | 08 March 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-0336-Civ.,No. 98-2249-Civ.,No. 98-2254-Civ.,No. 95-2152-Civ.,No. 98-2245-Civ.,No. 99-7228-Civ.,No. 98-2246-Civ.,No. 98-2256-Civ.,No. 98-2247-Civ.,No. 98-2242-Civ.,No. 99-7043-Civ.,No. 99-7042-Civ.,No. 00-2772-Civ.,No. 00-2773-Civ.,No. 98-2244-Civ.,No. 00-2771-Civ.,No. 98-2248-Civ.,No. 97-0059-Civ.,No. 99-7217-Civ.,No. 99-7229-Civ.,No. 98-2243-Civ.,98-2256-Civ.,98-2242-Civ.,98-2243-Civ.,98-2244-Civ.,98-2245-Civ.,98-2246-Civ.,98-2247-Civ.,98-2248-Civ.,98-2249-Civ.,98-2254-Civ.,99-7042-Civ.,99-7043-Civ.,99-7217-Civ.,99-7228-Civ.,99-7229-Civ.,00-2771-Civ.,00-2772-Civ.,00-2773-Civ.,97-0059-Civ.,99-0336-Civ.,95-2152-Civ. |
| Parties | FLORIDA EVERGREEN FOLIAGE and Louis Chang, Plaintiffs, v. E.I. Du PONT De NEMOURS AND COMPANY, Defendant. Steven J. Gutter, et al., Plaintiffs, v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida |
Sean L. Moore, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Thomas A. Pendarvis, A. Camden Lewis, Lewis Babcock & Hawkins, Columbia, SC, David W. Moyer, Stephen T. Cox, Cox & Moyer, San Francisco, CA, for Florida Evergreen Foliage, Louis Chang.
Edward A. Moss, Thomas Emerson Scott, Jr., Shook Hardy & Bacon, Miami, FL, William H. Boice, A. Stephens Clay, James F. Bogan, III, Kilpatrick Stockton, Atlanta, GA, Alice Guyton Hector, Lance August Harke, Harke & Clasby, Miami, FL, for E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company.
ORDER ON DUPONT'S MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the following motions:
• DuPont's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings As to All Damages Claims Based on Litigation Conduct,1 filed on September 20, 2000, along with a separate supporting brief. Plaintiffs filed an Opposition on October 19, 2000, which also included a Request for Judicial Notice. DuPont filed a Reply on November 7, 2000.
• DuPont's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Based on Plaintiff's Inability to Establish Reasonable Reliance as a Matter of Law, filed on October 10, 2000, along with a supporting brief. Plaintiffs filed a Memorandum in Opposition to DuPont's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on October 26, 2000, and DuPont filed a Reply Memorandum on November 20, 2000.
Oral arguments were held on December 20, 2000, after which the Court requested supplemental memoranda from the parties.2 Thereafter supplemental memoranda were filed by all the parties on January 16, 2001, and responses to the supplemental memoranda were filed on February 2, 2001.
DuPont seeks dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).3 After careful consideration of the parties' arguments, the applicable case law, and the record as a whole, the Court concludes that both DuPont's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings As to All Damages Claims Based on Litigation Conduct and DuPont's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Based on. Plaintiff's Inability to Establish Reasonable Reliance as a Matter of Law should be granted in part and denied in part. Furthermore, as explained in the conclusion of this Order, the Court certifies that an interlocutory appeal by either or both parties is appropriate as to this Order.
The First Amended Complaint [D.E. 2], filed on October 22, 1998, contains thirteen claims for relief, as follows: Count 1, fraud; Count 2, intentional nondisclosure of material facts; Count 3, fraudulent inducement to settle; Count 4, fraud on the court under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b); Count 5, rescission and damages for fraud; Count 6, racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); Count 7, violation of 18 U.S.C § 1962(d) by conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); Count 8, conspiracy; Count 9, abuse of process; Count 10, infliction of emotional distress; Count 11, interference with prospective economic advantage; Count 12, spoliation of evidence; and Count 13, violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Defendant DuPont filed a Counterclaim and Answer [D.E. 106] on May 24, 2000, and Plaintiffs filed an Answer to DuPont's Counterclaim [D.E. 114] on June 13, 2000. These pleadings were considered for purposes of resolving the pending motions, with all the ambiguities and inferences interpreted in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs.
In order to understand the history of this case, it is necessary to discuss the underlying lawsuits and related proceedings that led to the present claims and the current disposition of the suit. In September 1992, Green Leaf Nursery, Inc. ("Green Leaf"), a Florida plant nursery, and its owner, Gus Pena ("Pena"), sued DuPont, asserting products liability claims based on property damage due to DuPont's fungicide Benlate and actual fraud claims based on DuPont's alleged concealment of Benlate's defects (the "Underlying Lawsuit"). See DuPont's Motion to Dismiss [D.E. 34], Exhibit 1 for a copy of the Complaint in the Underlying Lawsuit. Hundreds of similar Benlate lawsuits were brought by growers against DuPont and others in various parts of the United States. Green Leaf and Pena settled their claims with DuPont and executed a settlement agreement in favor of DuPont on May 25, 1994 (the "Settlement Contract" or "Settlement Agreement").
The settlement agreement states in paragraph 1 that:
In consideration of Defendant's [DuPont's] payment of the amount set forth in the authorization previously signed by Plaintiff[s] [Green Leaf & Pena], Plaintiff[s] hereby release[ ] Defendant from any and all causes of action, claims, demands, actions, obligations, damages, or liability, whether known or unknown, that Plaintiff[s] ever had, now ha[ve], or may hereafter have against Defendant, by reason of any fact or matter whatsoever, existing or occurring at any time up to and including the date this Release is signed (including, but not limited to, the claims asserted and sought to be asserted in the Action).
Settlement Contract ¶ 1. The settlement agreement also contained a choice of law provision in paragraph 15 stating that the release "shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware without giving effect to the choice of laws provisions thereof." Settlement Contract ¶ 15. On August 21, 1995, Judge Elliot issued an opinion in a related Benlate action, commonly called the Bush Ranch case, finding that DuPont had committed fraud on the court and imposing significant monetary sanctions on DuPont. See In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.-Benlate Litigation, 918 F.Supp. 1524 (M.D.Ga.1995), rev'd, 99 F.3d 363 (11th Cir.1996). On August 29, 1995, Plaintiffs dismissed the Underlying Lawsuit with prejudice pursuant to the May 25, 1994 Settlement.
The Amended Complaint to the action pending before this Court alleges that during the course of the litigation of the Underlying Lawsuit, DuPont wrongfully, illegally, and fraudulently withheld from discovery vital scientific data and information that DuPont was under an obligation to produce in the Underlying Suit and in other Benlate litigation being conducted simultaneously in other courts. Plaintiffs also allege that DuPont gave false testimony in other Benlate cases about Benlate's alleged defects and about scientific tests of Benlate relating to such issues. Plaintiffs further allege that the data was material to establishing the allegedly defective and contaminated nature of Benlate. They claim that DuPont withheld this data and information and made false statements in implementation of a scheme to defraud Plaintiffs and others who had used Benlate and suffered resulting damage. Plaintiffs state that the fraudulent conduct began before September 1991 and continued through the filing of the present action in 1998. Plaintiffs were monitoring the Benlate litigation in other courts, and the effect of DuPont's scheme and fraud was to induce Plaintiffs to enter into the May 1994 settlement agreement with DuPont in this case for less money than they would have otherwise insisted upon and been able to obtain.
Prior to the filing of Case No. 98-2256-Civ-Gold, seven similar lawsuits were filed by commercial nurseries against DuPont and consolidated in front of Judge Lenard. See Case No. 97-0059-Civ-Gold (formerly 97-0059-Civ-Lenard).4 Judge Lenard dismissed the cases under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) on the ground that the releases in the settlement agreements barred the fraudulent inducement claims. Because the choice-of-law provision in the settlement releases presented novel issues of Florida law, the Eleventh Circuit certified two questions to the Supreme Court of Florida. In response, the Supreme Court of Florida, on June 8, 2000, held that the choice-of-law provision in the settlement agreement controls the disposition of the claim that the agreement was fraudulently procured where the defrauded party has elected to affirm the contract and sue for damages, and that where Florida law applies, the release in these settlement agreements does not bar plaintiffs' fraudulent inducement claims. Mazzoni Farms, Inc. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 761 So.2d 306, 313 & 316 (Fla.2000). The Eleventh Circuit therefore reversed Judge Lenard's ruling and remanded the cases, but expressly stated that the district court should consider DuPont's arguments with regard to justifiable reliance upon remand. See Mazzoni Farms, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Co., 223 F.3d 1275, 1276 n. 2 (11th Cir.2000).
Meanwhile, upon a motion to dismiss in the consolidated cases before this Court, the question of whether the release in the settlement agreements bars plaintiffs' fraudulent inducement claims was certified to and accepted by the Supreme Court of Delaware. In an opinion issued on December 6, 1999, the Supreme Court of Delaware held that, under Delaware law, a tort claimant fraudulently induced to execute a release may opt either for rescission or a separate suit for fraud with damages calculated on the difference between that received under the release and the value of the settlement or recovery achieved had there been no fraud by the released party. See E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. Florida Evergreen Foliage, 744 A.2d 457, 458 (Del.1999).
Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate where no issue...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- MDS(Canada), Inc. v. Rad Source Techs., Inc.
-
Florida Evergreen Fol. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours
... Page 1345 ... 165 F.Supp.2d 1345 ... FLORIDA EVERGREEN FOLIAGE and Louis Chang, Plaintiffs, ... E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, Defendant ... No. 98-2256-CIV ... United States District Court, S.D ... ...
-
Matsuura v. EI Du Pont de Nemours and Co.
... ... Malone, who additionally represented over 200 similarly situated plaintiffs in Hawai`i and Florida and in other cases filed across the country ... In July 1993, the first trial ... ; 16 and (3) this court should not follow the decision of Judge Gold in Florida Evergreen I because it was based upon an erroneous interpretation of Florida law. The Matsuuras also address ... ' claims are virtually identical to the claims made by the plaintiffs in Florida Evergreen Foliage v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co., 165 F.Supp.2d 1345, 1359-61 (S.D.Fla.2001) [hereinafter, ... ...
-
Jackson v. Bellsouth Telecommunications
... ... corporation licensed to do business in the State of Florida, d.b.a. BellSouth, Francis B. Semmes, individually and as ... See Green Leaf Nursery v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 341 F.3d 1292, 1302-03 (11th Cir.2003); Fla. reen Foliage v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 135 F.Supp.2d 1271, 1280 ... ...