Arroyo-Gonzalez v. Coahoma Chemical

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: October 16, 2001
• Docket: 98-60646
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 98-60240 _____________________

CARLOS NICANOR ESPINOLA-E,

Plaintiff - Appellant-Cross-Appellee,

versus

COAHOMA CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., Individually and as Successor in Interest to Coahoma Chemical Company, Inc.; AMVAC CHEMICAL CORPORATION; SHELL OIL COMPANY; DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY; OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Individually and as successor to Occidental Chemical Company and Occidental Chemical and Agricultural Products, Inc., Hooker Chemical and Plastics, Occidental Company of Texas and Best Fertilizer Company; CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; CHIQUITA BRANDS, INC.; DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE, N.A.,

Defendants-Appellees,

STANDARD FRUIT CO.; STANDARD FRUIT AND STEAMSHIP; DOLE FOOD COMPANY; DOLE FRESH FRUIT CO., INC., Defendants - Appellees-Cross-Appellants.

***************************************************************** _____________________

No. 98-60454 _____________________

AMILCAR BELTETON-RIVERA,

COAHOMA CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to Coahoma Chemical Company, Inc.; AMVAC CHEMICAL CORPORATION; SHELL OIL COMPANY; DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY; OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Individually and as Successor to Occidental Chemical Company and Occidental Chemical and Agricultural Products, Inc., Hooker Chemical and Plastics, Occidental Chemical Company of Texas and Best Fertilizer Company; STANDARD FRUIT COMPANY; CHIQUITA BRANDS, INC.; DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE, N.A.

STANDARD FRUIT AND STEAMSHIP; DOLE FOOD COMPANY; DOLE FRESH FRUIT COMPANY, INC.; CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Defendants - Appellees-Cross-Appellants.

*****************************************************************

No. 98-60467 _____________________

2 EULOGIO GARZON-LARRESTHEGUI,

COAHOMA CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to Coahoma Chemical Company, Incorporated; AMVAC CHEMICAL CORPORATION; SHELL OIL COMPANY; DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY; OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Individually and as successor to Occidental Chemical Company and Occidental Chemical and Agricultural Products, Inc., Hooker Chemical and Plastics, Occidental Chemical Company of Texas and Best Fertilizer Company; STANDARD FRUIT COMPANY; CHIQUITA BRANDS, INC.; DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE, North America,

STANDARD FRUIT AND STEAMSHIP; DOLE FOOD COMPANY; DOLE FRESH FRUIT COMPANY; CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

*****************************************************************

No. 98-60510 _____________________

VALENTIN VALDEZ-C,

3 versus

COAHOMA CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to Coahoma Chemical Company, Inc.; AMVAC CHEMICAL CORPORATION; SHELL OIL COMPANY; THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY; OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION, individually and as successor to Occidental Chemical Company and Occidental Chemical and Agricultural Products, Inc., Hooker Chemical and Plastics, Occidental Chemical Company of Texas and Best Fertilizer Company; STANDARD FRUIT COMPANY; DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE, N.A.,

STANDARD FRUIT AND STEAMSHIP; DOLE FOOD COMPANY; DOLE FRESH FRUIT INTERNATIONAL; CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

*****************************************************************

No. 98-60646 _____________________

EDGAR ARROYO-GONZALEZ; ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

EDGAR ARROYO-GONZALEZ,

4 COAHOMA CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to Coahoma Chemical Co., Inc.; AMVAC CHEMICAL CORPORATION; SHELL OIL COMPANY; DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY; OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Individually and as successor to Occidental Chemical Co. and Occidental Chemical and Agricultural Products, Inc., Hooker Chemical and Plastics, Occidental Chemical Company of Texas and Best Fertilizer Co.; STANDARD FRUIT CO.; CHIQUITA BRANDS, INC.; CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE, N.A.,

Defendants-Appellees

STANDARD FRUIT AND STEAMSHIP COMPANY; DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC.; DOLE FRESH FRUIT COMPANY,

_________________________________________________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Biloxi USDC Nos. 1:96-CV-360-RG, 1:96-CV-359-GR, 1:96-CV-361-G-R, 1:96-CV-362-G-R, & 1:96-CV-358-BrR _________________________________________________________________ January 19, 2001

Before JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.*

PER CURIAM:**

* Judge, U.S. Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. ** Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

5 This appeal is the consolidation of five individual lawsuits

arising from the use of the pesticide dibromochloropropane (“DBCP”)

on banana plantations in Latin America. The plaintiffs, citizens

of Ecuador, Panama, Guatemala and Costa Rica, and former banana

plantation employees, brought suit in Mississippi state court

against a variety of companies allegedly related to the plaintiffs’

exposure to DBCP, including former DBCP manufacturers and

distributors, and banana producers. The plaintiffs filed claims

for negligence, conspiracy, strict liability, intentional tort, and

breach of implied warranty. The defendants removed the suits to

federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and federal question

jurisdiction, claiming the suits involved the federal common law of

foreign relations. The district courts found jurisdiction on both

grounds, and dismissed the claims on the grounds of forum non

conveniens.

The plaintiffs now appeal the failure to remand, arguing that

the district courts erred in finding subject matter jurisdiction

for removal based on either diversity or federal question

jurisdiction. They also appeal the dismissal of Chiquita Brands

and Standard Fruit Company for lack of personal jurisdiction, and

the dismissal of all other defendants based on forum non

conveniens. Chiquita Brands International, Standard Fruit and

Steamship Company, Dole Food Company, and Dole Fresh Fruit Company

6 cross-appeal on the district courts’ findings that they were

subject to personal jurisdiction in Mississippi.

The district courts erred in finding federal question

jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction based on the common law of

foreign relations is limited in scope; federal jurisdiction does

not attach to every suit that involves foreign nationals. See,

e.g., Marathon Oil Co. v. Rurgas, A.G., 115 F.3d 315, 320 (5th Cir.

1997) rev’d on other grounds, 526 U.S. 574 (1999); Aquafaith

Shipping, Ltd. v. Jarillas, 963 F.2d 806, 808 (5th Cir. 1992).

Although, as the defendants point out, the banana industry is an

important segment of the economy in all of the countries at issue

in these suits, these suits do not pose a threat to foreign

sovereignty. None of the countries is a party to, or has

protested, these particular lawsuits. Federal question

jurisdiction does not exist here.

Although there is no federal question jurisdiction, this suit

was properly removed to federal court based on diversity

jurisdiction. Because the plaintiffs are all foreign nationals and

the defendants are all citizens of a variety of different states,

diversity jurisdiction would have existed if the suits had

originally been filed in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Removal is therefore appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Although

defendants who are residents of the state where the action was

7 filed cannot remove to federal court under § 1441(b), we agree with

the district court that the only Mississippi defendant, Coahoma

Chemical Company, was improperly served and fraudulently joined.

Because a binding stipulation that a plaintiff will not accept

damages in excess of the jurisdictional amount defeats diversity

jurisdiction, however, we remand the Espinola-E suit, No. 98-6240,

to the district court for a determination on whether the

stipulation that was filed with the complaint, claiming damages of

no more than $50,000, is binding. If the district court finds that

Espinola-E executed a binding stipulation, we direct the court to

remand the case to the state courts. If the district court does

not find a binding stipulation, we direct the court to dismiss the

case on the grounds of forum non conveniens.

For the reasons given by the district court, we affirm the

findings and holdings on personal jurisdiction and the dismissal of

all claims for which there is jurisdiction on the grounds of forum

non conveniens.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, except as to

Espinola-E, whose case is REMANDED to the district court for

further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.