USCA11 Case: 20-14238 Date Filed: 09/16/2021 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
No. 20-14238 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 0:08-md-01916-KAM, 9:11-cv-80405-KAM
9:11-cv-80405-KAM
DOES 1-254,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
ANGELA MARIA HENAO MONTES,
Plaintiff,
versus
CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL INC.,
Defendant - Appellee,
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, et al.,
Defendants. USCA11 Case: 20-14238 Date Filed: 09/16/2021 Page: 2 of 7
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________
(September 16, 2021)
Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The background of this appeal is a complex procedural web of litigation
related to murders and war crimes that occurred over the last several decades in a
protracted Colombian civil war. The issue on appeal, however, is narrow: whether
the district court abused its discretion when it held that foreign national plaintiffs
cannot impose a constructive trust over the assets of a Colombian guerrilla group
that the plaintiffs have never sued. For the following reasons, we hold that the
district court did not abuse its discretion and thus we affirm.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
We write only for the parties, who are familiar with the facts and procedure
of this case. The Doe Plaintiffs are family members of alleged victims of war
crimes committed by a terrorist group called the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias
de Colombia (the FARC). They brought this action in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia against Chiquita Brands International Inc., alleging that
Chiquita provided the FARC with financial support, which contributed to the harm
2 USCA11 Case: 20-14238 Date Filed: 09/16/2021 Page: 3 of 7
suffered by the Doe Plaintiffs’ family members. The Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) transferred the case to the Southern District of
Florida.
The Doe Plaintiffs never brought suit against the FARC. Two groups of
American nationals, however, did sue the FARC and were eventually able to
obtain judgments under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), which allows civil
recovery for acts of international terrorism. See 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a). The two
groups—who we will refer to as the Pescatores and the Stansells—consist of
family members of Americans who were captured and either tortured or murdered
by the FARC.
The Pescatores filed one lawsuit against the FARC and one of its
commanders, and another lawsuit against Chiquita. In their action against the
FARC, the Pescatores obtained a $69 million default judgment, which included
statutory treble damages. Pescatore v. Palmera Pineda, 345 F. Supp. 3d 68
(D.D.C. 2018). Their separate action against Chiquita was transferred to the
Southern District of Florida by the JPML. It settled before trial.
The Stansells, for their part, sued the FARC in the Middle District of
Florida. In that action, they won a $318 million default judgment. Stansell v.
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), 149 F. Supp. 3d 1337 (M.D.
Fla. 2015). The Stansells also sued Chiquita in the Middle District of Florida for
3 USCA11 Case: 20-14238 Date Filed: 09/16/2021 Page: 4 of 7
assisting the FARC in carrying out acts of terrorism. The JPML transferred this
action to the Southern District of Florida, where Chiquita and the Stansells
ultimately filed a stipulation of dismissal.
After the Pescatores and Stansells had each obtained judgments against the
FARC, they entered a joint prosecution and sharing agreement to cooperate in
enforcing the judgments. According to a July 10, 2020, order from the District
Court for the District of Columbia, the Pescatores and Stansells managed to collect
over $18 million from assets that had been frozen by the Office of Foreign Assets
Control (OFAC).1
On July 20, 2020, the Doe Plaintiffs filed a motion to impose a prejudgment
constructive trust to prevent the dissipation of the frozen FARC assets. In support
of their motion, the Doe Plaintiffs challenged the default judgments obtained
against the FARC by the Pescatores and Stansells, arguing that jurisdiction was
lacking and that the judgments should have been barred by res judicata.
The district court denied the motion for a constructive trust. It reasoned that
the Doe Plaintiffs “ha[d] no claim pending against the FARC . . . [, and] ha[d] no
confidential relationship with the Stansell / Pescatore Plaintiffs on which a
constructive trust over a blocked FARC-asset res might conceivably hinge.” The
1 The Doe Plaintiffs allege that the Pescatores and Stansells have collected somewhere close to $20 million. 4 USCA11 Case: 20-14238 Date Filed: 09/16/2021 Page: 5 of 7
Doe Plaintiffs had never sued the FARC, nor was there any evidence that the
frozen FARC assets were traceable to monies paid by Chiquita. “Without evidence
that the res contain[ed] funds traceable to Chiquita,” the district court explained,
“there [was] no demonstrable basis for the equitable relief requested.”
The Doe Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and for leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint adding the FARC as a defendant to their suit. The district
court found no basis to reconsider its ruling on the constructive trust, and it found
that the motion for leave to amend, which the Doe Plaintiffs had filed nine years
into their suit, was “plainly untimely and unsupported by adequate cause.” The
Doe Plaintiffs timely filed a notice of appeal as to the denial of their motion for a
constructive trust.
II. Standard of Review
“[B]ecause a constructive trust is an equitable remedy, we review the district
court’s decision not to impose a constructive trust for an abuse of discretion.”
United States v. Ramunno, 599 F.3d 1269, 1273 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).
III. Discussion
On appeal, the Doe Plaintiffs argue that the default judgments obtained by
the Pescatores and Stansells are void because the courts lacked jurisdiction and
because the cases should have been barred by res judicata. The Doe Plaintiffs add
that they have a right to the FARC’s assets under the Crime Victim Rights Act, and
5 USCA11 Case: 20-14238 Date Filed: 09/16/2021 Page: 6 of 7
that the scheduling of this case—particularly that the Doe Plaintiffs have been
unable to initiate discovery—violates their rights under the Fifth and Seventh
Amendments.
We begin by noting that the Doe Plaintiffs’ appeal is limited to the sole issue
included in their notice of appeal: the denial of their motion for a constructive trust.
See O’Neal v. Garrison, 263 F.3d 1317, 1325 (11th Cir. 2001). Thus, we address
only that issue.
Under Florida law, “[t]he purpose of a constructive trust is to prevent the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
USCA11 Case: 20-14238 Date Filed: 09/16/2021 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
No. 20-14238 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 0:08-md-01916-KAM, 9:11-cv-80405-KAM
9:11-cv-80405-KAM
DOES 1-254,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
ANGELA MARIA HENAO MONTES,
Plaintiff,
versus
CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL INC.,
Defendant - Appellee,
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, et al.,
Defendants. USCA11 Case: 20-14238 Date Filed: 09/16/2021 Page: 2 of 7
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________
(September 16, 2021)
Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The background of this appeal is a complex procedural web of litigation
related to murders and war crimes that occurred over the last several decades in a
protracted Colombian civil war. The issue on appeal, however, is narrow: whether
the district court abused its discretion when it held that foreign national plaintiffs
cannot impose a constructive trust over the assets of a Colombian guerrilla group
that the plaintiffs have never sued. For the following reasons, we hold that the
district court did not abuse its discretion and thus we affirm.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
We write only for the parties, who are familiar with the facts and procedure
of this case. The Doe Plaintiffs are family members of alleged victims of war
crimes committed by a terrorist group called the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias
de Colombia (the FARC). They brought this action in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia against Chiquita Brands International Inc., alleging that
Chiquita provided the FARC with financial support, which contributed to the harm
2 USCA11 Case: 20-14238 Date Filed: 09/16/2021 Page: 3 of 7
suffered by the Doe Plaintiffs’ family members. The Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) transferred the case to the Southern District of
Florida.
The Doe Plaintiffs never brought suit against the FARC. Two groups of
American nationals, however, did sue the FARC and were eventually able to
obtain judgments under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), which allows civil
recovery for acts of international terrorism. See 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a). The two
groups—who we will refer to as the Pescatores and the Stansells—consist of
family members of Americans who were captured and either tortured or murdered
by the FARC.
The Pescatores filed one lawsuit against the FARC and one of its
commanders, and another lawsuit against Chiquita. In their action against the
FARC, the Pescatores obtained a $69 million default judgment, which included
statutory treble damages. Pescatore v. Palmera Pineda, 345 F. Supp. 3d 68
(D.D.C. 2018). Their separate action against Chiquita was transferred to the
Southern District of Florida by the JPML. It settled before trial.
The Stansells, for their part, sued the FARC in the Middle District of
Florida. In that action, they won a $318 million default judgment. Stansell v.
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), 149 F. Supp. 3d 1337 (M.D.
Fla. 2015). The Stansells also sued Chiquita in the Middle District of Florida for
3 USCA11 Case: 20-14238 Date Filed: 09/16/2021 Page: 4 of 7
assisting the FARC in carrying out acts of terrorism. The JPML transferred this
action to the Southern District of Florida, where Chiquita and the Stansells
ultimately filed a stipulation of dismissal.
After the Pescatores and Stansells had each obtained judgments against the
FARC, they entered a joint prosecution and sharing agreement to cooperate in
enforcing the judgments. According to a July 10, 2020, order from the District
Court for the District of Columbia, the Pescatores and Stansells managed to collect
over $18 million from assets that had been frozen by the Office of Foreign Assets
Control (OFAC).1
On July 20, 2020, the Doe Plaintiffs filed a motion to impose a prejudgment
constructive trust to prevent the dissipation of the frozen FARC assets. In support
of their motion, the Doe Plaintiffs challenged the default judgments obtained
against the FARC by the Pescatores and Stansells, arguing that jurisdiction was
lacking and that the judgments should have been barred by res judicata.
The district court denied the motion for a constructive trust. It reasoned that
the Doe Plaintiffs “ha[d] no claim pending against the FARC . . . [, and] ha[d] no
confidential relationship with the Stansell / Pescatore Plaintiffs on which a
constructive trust over a blocked FARC-asset res might conceivably hinge.” The
1 The Doe Plaintiffs allege that the Pescatores and Stansells have collected somewhere close to $20 million. 4 USCA11 Case: 20-14238 Date Filed: 09/16/2021 Page: 5 of 7
Doe Plaintiffs had never sued the FARC, nor was there any evidence that the
frozen FARC assets were traceable to monies paid by Chiquita. “Without evidence
that the res contain[ed] funds traceable to Chiquita,” the district court explained,
“there [was] no demonstrable basis for the equitable relief requested.”
The Doe Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and for leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint adding the FARC as a defendant to their suit. The district
court found no basis to reconsider its ruling on the constructive trust, and it found
that the motion for leave to amend, which the Doe Plaintiffs had filed nine years
into their suit, was “plainly untimely and unsupported by adequate cause.” The
Doe Plaintiffs timely filed a notice of appeal as to the denial of their motion for a
constructive trust.
II. Standard of Review
“[B]ecause a constructive trust is an equitable remedy, we review the district
court’s decision not to impose a constructive trust for an abuse of discretion.”
United States v. Ramunno, 599 F.3d 1269, 1273 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).
III. Discussion
On appeal, the Doe Plaintiffs argue that the default judgments obtained by
the Pescatores and Stansells are void because the courts lacked jurisdiction and
because the cases should have been barred by res judicata. The Doe Plaintiffs add
that they have a right to the FARC’s assets under the Crime Victim Rights Act, and
5 USCA11 Case: 20-14238 Date Filed: 09/16/2021 Page: 6 of 7
that the scheduling of this case—particularly that the Doe Plaintiffs have been
unable to initiate discovery—violates their rights under the Fifth and Seventh
Amendments.
We begin by noting that the Doe Plaintiffs’ appeal is limited to the sole issue
included in their notice of appeal: the denial of their motion for a constructive trust.
See O’Neal v. Garrison, 263 F.3d 1317, 1325 (11th Cir. 2001). Thus, we address
only that issue.
Under Florida law, “[t]he purpose of a constructive trust is to prevent the
unjust enrichment of culpable parties.” 2 Bender v. CenTrust Mortg. Corp., 51 F.3d
1027, 1029 (11th Cir. 1995). “The beneficiary of the trust is entitled to have his
original interest restored in his property which was wrongfully taken.” Id. A party
seeking a constructive trust must satisfy two elements: “(1) a confidential
relationship, by which (2) one acquires an advantage he should not, in equity and
good conscience retain.” Id. at 1030. When seeking a constructive trust, a party
must prove the elements by clear and convincing evidence. Gersh v. Cofman, 769
So. 2d 407, 409 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000).
2 Because the district court had diversity jurisdiction over this matter, we apply Florida law. See Am. United Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 480 F.3d 1043, 1059 (11th Cir. 2007). “Federal courts adjudicating state law claims apply the substantive law of the state where they render decisions.” Id. (citing Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938)). 6 USCA11 Case: 20-14238 Date Filed: 09/16/2021 Page: 7 of 7
The Doe Plaintiffs fail to explain how the district court abused its discretion
by denying their motion for imposition of a constructive trust. In fact, the Doe
Plaintiffs do not appear to advance any theory whatsoever as to how they can
satisfy the first element of a constructive trust: a confidential relationship with the
Pescatores and Stansells. See Bender, 51 F.3d at 1030.
It is true that the Pescatores and Stansells—like the Doe Plaintiffs—have
brought lawsuits against Chiquita. But the judgments they have enforced against
the FARC do not stem from their litigation against Chiquita; they stem from
separate suits against the FARC—a party the Doe Plaintiffs have never sued. As a
result, there can be no real contention that the frozen FARC assets at issue, which
have never been traced to Chiquita, were “wrongfully taken” from the Doe
Plaintiffs by the Pescatores and Stansells. See id. at 1029.
As a result, we need not address the Doe Plaintiffs’ arguments about
jurisdictional defects and claim preclusion in the cases brought by the Pescatores
and Stansells. Nor must we address the district court’s scheduling order, the
application of the Crime Victim Rights Act, or any of the Doe Plaintiffs’ additional
arguments on appeal. In any event, it remains the case that the Doe Plaintiffs have
failed to establish the elements necessary for imposing a constructive trust.
Therefore, we affirm the district court.
AFFIRM.