Patrickson v. Dole Food Co.
| Decision Date | 30 May 2001 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 99-16524,PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,THIRD-PARTY-DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS,THIRD-PARTY-DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES,DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES,99-16770,s. 99-16524 |
| Citation | 251 F.3d 795 |
| Parties | (9th Cir. 2001) GERARDO DENNIS PATRICKSON; RODOLFO BERMUDEZ ARIAS; BENIGNO TORRES HERNANDEZ; FERNANDO JIMENEZ ARIAS; SANTOS LEANDROS; HERMAN ROMERO AGUILAR; ELIAS ESPINOZA MERELO HOOKER ERA CELESTINO; ALIRIO MANUEL MENDEZ; CARLOS HUMBERTO RIVERA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,, v. DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC.; DOLE FRESH FRUIT COMPANY; DOLE FRESH FRUIT INTERNATIONAL, LIMITED; PINEAPPLE GROWERS ASSOCIATIONOF HAWAII; AMVAC CHEMICAL CORPORATION; SHELL OIL COMPANY; DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY; OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR TO OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL COMPANY AND OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, INC., HOOKER CHEMICAL AND PLASTICS, OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL COMPANY OF TEXAS AND BEST FERTILIZER COMPANY; STANDARD FRUIT CO.; STANDARD FRUIT & STEAMSHIP CO.; STANDARD FRUIT COMPANY DE COSTA RICA, S.A.; STANDARD FRUIT COMPANY DE HONDURAS, S.A.; CHIQUITA BRANDS, INC.; CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC., INDIVIDUALLY; UNITED BRANDS COMPANY, INC., SUC CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; MARITROP TRADING CORPORATION; DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE, N.A.; DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE HAWAII, INC.; DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE COMPANYAND FRESH DEL MONTE N.V.,, v. DEAD SEA BROMINE CO., LTD.; BROMINE COMPOUNDS LIMITED, GERARDO DENNIS PATRICKSON; RODOLFO BERMUDEZ ARIAS; BENIGNO TORRES HERNANDEZ; FERNANDO JIMENEZ ARIAS; SANTOS LEANDROS; HERMAN ROMERO AGUILAR; ELIAS ESPINOZA MERELO HOOKER ERA CELESTINO; ALIRIO MANUEL MENDEZ; CARLOS HUMBERTO RIVERA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,, v. DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC.; DOLE FRESH FRUIT COMPANY; DOLE FRESH FRUIT INTERNATIONAL, LIMITED; PINEAPPLE GROWERS ASSOCIATIONOF HAWAII; AMVAC CHEMICAL CORPORATION; SHELL OIL COMPANY; DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY; OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR TO OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL COMPANY AND OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, INC., HOOKER CHEMICAL AND PLASTICS, OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL COMPANY OF TEXAS AND BEST FERTILIZER COMPANY; STANDARD FRUIT |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Jonathan S. Massey, Washington, Dc, argued the cause for the plaintiffs-appellants.
Robert H. Klonoff, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Washington, Dc, and Boaz S. Morag, Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, New York, Ny, argued the cause for the defendants-appellees.
Peter R. Paden, Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman Llp, New York, Ny, argued the cause for the thirdparty-defendants-appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Helen Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. CV-97-01516-HG/ BMK
Before: Alex Kozinski, Susan P. Graber and Raymond C. Fisher, Circuit Judges.
We consider whether the federal courts have jurisdiction over a class action brought by Latin American banana workers against multinational fruit and chemical companies alleged to have exposed the workers to a toxic pesticide.
Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) is a powerful pesticide. Tough on pests, it's no friend to humans either. Absorbed by the skin or inhaled, it's alleged to cause sterility, testicular atrophy, miscarriages, liver damage, cancer and other ailments that you wouldn't wish on anyone. Originally manufactured by Dow Chemical and Shell Oil, the pesticide was banned from general use in the United States by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1979. But the chemical companies continued to distribute it to fruit companies in developing nations.
In our case, banana workers from Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala and Panama brought a class action against Dole Food Company, other major fruit companies and chemical companies (hereinafter "Dole") for injuries allegedly sustained from exposure to DBCP in their home countries. This case represents one front in a broad litigation war between these plaintiffs' lawyers and these defendants. In some of the cases, plaintiffs have reportedly won multimillion dollar settlements. See Larry K. Lowry & Arthur L. Frank, Exporting DBCP and Other Banned Pesticides: Consideration of Ethical Issues, 5 Int'l J. Occup. Envtl. Health 135, 140 (1999). In others, defendants have managed to have the cases dismissed for forum non conveniens. See, e.g., Delgado v. Shell Oil Co., 231 F.3d 165, 169 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1603 (2001); Sibaja v. Dow Chem. Co., 757 F.2d 1215, 1216 (11th Cir. 1985).
The merits are not before us. Instead, we must decide whether the case is properly in federal court. The workers brought suit in Hawaii state court. Dole responded by impleading two Israeli chemical companies, Dead Sea Bromine Company and Bromine Compounds Limited ("Dead Sea Companies"), which are alleged to have manufactured some of the DBCP used in plaintiffs' home countries. The Companies were, until recently, indirectly owned by the Israeli government, and they immediately removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330. Dole likewise removed based on federal-question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. The district court denied plaintiffs' remand motion and then dismissed the case for forum non conveniens.
Dole was entitled to remove the case to federal court if plaintiffs could have brought it there to begin with. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a). We must therefore consider whether plaintiffs could have brought the case in district court under federal-question jurisdiction or the FSIA1
A. Federal-Question Jurisdiction
We are courts of limited jurisdiction. This means we hear only those cases that Congress directs and the Constitution permits us to hear. Under Article III, federal courts may assert jurisdiction over federal questions, extending to all cases "arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." U.S. Const. art. III, §§ 2. Although any federal ingredient may be sufficient to satisfy Article III, the statutory grant of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 requires more. See Verlinden B.V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 495 (1983) ().
Even if the case turns entirely on the validity of a federal defense, federal courts may not assert jurisdiction unless a federal right or immunity is "an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff's cause of action." Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 11 (1983) (quoting Gully v. First Nat'l Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112 (1936)). This venerable "well-pleaded complaint" rule keeps us from becoming entangled in state law controversies on the conjecture that federal law may come into play at some point during the litigation; it also ensures that Congress retains control over the size of federal court dockets.
Under conventional principles, the class action here unquestionably arises under state law. Plaintiffs seek relief under the common law of Hawaii for negligence, conspiracy, strict liability, intentional torts and breach of implied warranty. None of the claims has an element premised on a right created by Congress or the Constitution. Dole nonetheless argues that we have federal-question jurisdiction because the case calls for an application of the federal common law of foreign relations.
Although there is no general federal common law, "there are enclaves of federal judge-made law which bind the States." Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 426 (1964). In Sabbatino, the Court held that one of those enclaves concerns the legal principles governing the nation's relationship with other members of the international community. The case considered whether the requires U.S. courts to recognize the validity of the Cuban government's expropriation of private property. A longstanding common law principle, the act of state doctrine precludes courts from questioning the legality of actions that a foreign government has taken within its own borders. See Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250, 252 (1897). Sabbatino considered whether the doctrine was a matter of state or federal law.
Because the Constitution gives the federal government exclusive authority to manage the nation's foreign affairs, the Court concluded that "rules of international law should not be left to divergent and perhaps parochial state interpretations." Sabbatino, 376 U.S. at 425. Whether a foreign state's act is given legal force in the courts of the United States is a "uniquely federal" question directly implicating our nation's foreign affairs. See id. at 425-26. Therefore, it was appropriate to fashion a single federal standard to govern such cases, rather than rely on a patchwork of separate state standards. Equally important, the Supreme Court in Sabbatino reserved to itself ultimate review of all cases raising the act of state doctrine, rather than leaving them to the various state supreme courts. See Republic of Iraq v. First Nat'l City Bank, 353 F.2d 47, 51 (2d Cir. 1965) (Friendly, J.) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Malaysia Intern Shipping v. Sinochem Intern
...and the Ninth Circuits have also reached the same result as the Fifth Circuit's Dominguez-Cota opinion. See Patrickson v. Dole Food Co., Inc., 251 F.3d 795 (9th Cir.2001), aff'd in part, cert. dismissed in part, 538 U.S. 468, 123 S.Ct. 1655, 155 L.Ed.2d 643 (2003); Kamel v. Hill-Rom Co., In......
-
In re Fresh & Process Potatoes Antitrust Litig.
...support; (5) its employment policies; and (6) its obligations and privileges under state law. Id.;see also Patrickson v. Dole Food Company, 251 F.3d 795, 807 (9th Cir.2001). An entity may have some autonomy from the foreign government and still be its organ. Patrickson, 251 F.3d at 807. Fir......
-
In re Ski Train Fire in Kaprun, Aust. 11/11/2000
...the action was brought has both subject matter and personal jurisdiction and is a proper venue."") (citing Patrickson v. Dole Food Co., 251 F.3d 795, 801 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2001)). 3. The Waagner defendants admit that Waagner Biro AG ("WBAG"), the predecessor of WBB, entered into a contract wit......
-
Turedi v. Coca Cola Co.
...more convenient to decide the merits." Id. at 363-64; see also Kamel v. Hill-Rom Co., 108 F.3d 799 (7th Cir.1997); Patrickson v. Dole Food Co., 251 F.3d 795 (9th Cir.2001), aff'd in part, cert. dismissed in part, 538 U.S. 468, 123 S.Ct. 1655, 155 L.Ed.2d 643 Nonetheless, Monegasque represen......
-
Second Circuit Expands Threshold Issues Reviewable Before Determining Complex Issues Of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
...(1973) and Ellis v. Dyson, 421 U.S. 426 (1975)). 12. 526 U.S. 574, 575 (1999). 13. Id. at 585. 14. See, e.g., Patrickson v. Dole Food Co., 251 F.3d 795, 800 n.3 (9th Cir. 2001); Kamel v. Hill-Rom Co., 108 F.3d 799, 805 (7th Cir. 15. 549 U.S. 422 (2007). 16. Id. at 431. 17. Id. 18. 467 F.3d ......
-
Case summaries.
...in existence." Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 428 (1964). (598) W.S. Kirkpatrick & Co., 493 U.S. at 406. (599) 251 F.3d 795 (9th Cir. (600) Id. at 803. (601) Grable & Sons Metal Prods, 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005). (602) Provincial Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome,......
-
Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Antitrust and Business Tort Litigation
...federal common law), abrogated on other grounds by US Airways v. McCutchen, 663 F.2d 671 (3d Cir. 2011). 17. Patrickson v. Dole Food Co., 251 F.3d 795, 799-800 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that common law of foreign relations may provide federal jurisdiction under § 1331); Torres v. S. Peru Copp......
-
CATCH AND KILL JURISDICTION.
...has as a substantial element an issue involving foreign relations or foreign policy matters, federal jurisdiction is present."). (77.) 251 F.3d 795, 803 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Provincial Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1089 (9th Cir. (78.) See, e.g., Abrahamsen v......
-
Foreign relations and federal questions: resolving the judicial split on federal court jurisdiction.
...Fifth Circuit's confused jurisdictional reasoning in Torres, it is included on this side of the split. (4.) Patrickson v. Dole Food Co., 251 F.3d 795 (9th Cir. 2001). The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari for this case but limited the grant to the resolution of two questions unrelated t......