USCA11 Case: 19-13926 Date

(1 ofFiled:
21) 08/18/2021 Page: 1 of 18

Case No. 19-13926-C

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
___________________________________________

IN RE: CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATONAL, INC.,

ALIEN TORT STATUTE LITIGATION
___________________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Florida
No. 08-md-01916
(Nos. 08-80465, 11-80404)
(The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra)

____________________________________________

APPELLANTS DOE 378 AND DOE 840'S MOTION TO CONDUCT ORAL

ARGUMENTS BY VIDEO AND TO DIVIDE APPELLANTS' TIME 50/50
BETWEEN WOLF AND NON-WOLF APPELLANTS

____________________________________________

Paul Wolf, DC Bar #480285

P.O. Box 21840
Washington, D.C. 20009
Telephone (202) 431-6986
paulwolf@yahoo.com
Fax: n/a
Attorney for Plaintiff-
Appellants-Cross-Appellees
Doe 378 and Doe 840
 USCA11 Case: 19-13926 Date
(2 ofFiled:
21) 08/18/2021 Page: 2 of 18

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS

Counsel certifies that the following is a complete list of the trial judge(s), all

attorneys, persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, or corporations

(noted with its stock symbol if publicly listed) that have an interest in the outcome

of the particular case on appeal, including subsidiaries, conglomerates, affiliates,

and parent corporations, and other identifiable legal entities related to a party,

known to Appellants, are as follows:

1. Doe 378, whose identity remains confidential under a Protective Order of

the District Court, and the daughter of deceased plaintiff Doe 840, whose identity

also remains confidential under the Order. In addition, the plaintiffs bring their

cases as personal representatives of the estates of the deceased. They represent

other legal heirs with interests, whose identities are known to the Appellees, but

remain confidential under the Protective Order.

2. The other plaintiffs in the complaints filed by undersigned counsel in the

Southern District of Florida, in Case Nos. 08-80465, 10-80652, 11-80404, 11-

80405 and 17-cv-80475. Undersigned counsel represents the legal heirs of

approximately 2,319 wrongful death cases. In addition, there are six other plaintiff

groups with a total of about 7500 "claims" in the MDL, all of whom have an

interest in this appeal.

3. Additional interested parties are:

i
 USCA11 Case: 19-13926 Date
(3 ofFiled:
21) 08/18/2021 Page: 3 of 18

Agrícola Longaví Limitada

Agrícola Santa Marta Limitada

Agroindustria Santa Rosa de Lima, S.A.

Aguirre, Fernando

Alamo Land Company

Alsama, Ltd.

American Produce Company

Americana de Exportación S.A.

Anacar LDC

Arnold & Porter

Arvelo, José E.

Associated Santa Maria Minerals

B C Systems, Inc.

Baird, Bruce

Bandy, Kevin

Barbush Development Corp.

Bienes Del Rio, S.A.

Blank Rome LLP

BlackRock, Inc. (NYSE: BLK)

Blue Fish Holdings Establishment

ii
 USCA11 Case: 19-13926 Date
(4 ofFiled:
21) 08/18/2021 Page: 4 of 18

Bocas Fruit Co. L.L.C.

In Re: Chiquita Brands Int’l., Inc.

Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Fort Lauderdale

Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Miami

Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, New York

Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Orlando

Bronson, Ardith

Brundicorpi S.A.

Cadavid Londoño, Paula

Carrillo, Arturo J.

C.C.A. Fruit Service Company Limited

CB Containers, Inc.

Centro Global de Procesamiento Chiquita, S.R.L.

Charagres, Inc., S.A.

Childs, Robert

Chiquita (Canada) Inc.

Chiquita (Shanghai) Enterprise Management Consulting Co., Ltd.

Chiquita Banana Company B.V.

Chiquita Brands International Foundation

Chiquita Brands International Sàrl

iii
 USCA11 Case: 19-13926 Date
(5 ofFiled:
21) 08/18/2021 Page: 5 of 18

Chiquita Brands International, Inc. (NYSE: CQB)

Chiquita Brands L.L.C.

Chiquita Central Europe, s.r.o.

Chiquita Compagnie des Bananes

Chiquita Deutschland GmbH

Chiquita Food Innovation B.V.

Chiquita for Charities

Chiquita Fresh B.V.B.A.

Chiquita Fresh España, S.A.

Chiquita Fresh North America L.L.C.

Chiquita Fruit Bar (Belgium) BVBA

Chiquita Fruit Bar (Germany) GmbH

Chiquita Fruit Bar GmbH

Chiquita Frupac B.V.

Chiquita Hellas Anonimi Eteria Tropikon Ke Allon Frouton

Chiquita Hong Kong Limited

Chiquita International Services Group N.V.

Chiquita Italia, S.p.A.

Chiquita Logistic Services El Salvador Ltda.

Chiquita Logistic Services Guatemala, Limitada

iv
 USCA11 Case: 19-13926 Date
(6 ofFiled:
21) 08/18/2021 Page: 6 of 18

Chiquita Logistic Services Honduras, S.de RL

Chiquita Melon Packers, Inc.

Chiquita Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V.

Chiquita Nature and Community Foundation

Chiquita Nordic Oy

Chiquita Norway As

Chiquita Poland Spolka Z ograniczona odpowiedzialnoscia

Chiquita Portugal Venda E Comercializaçao De Fruta,

Unipessoal Lda

Chiquita Relief Fund - We Care

Chiquita Shared Services

Chiquita Singapore Pte. Ltd.

Chiquita Slovakia, S.r.o.

Chiquita Sweden AB

Chiquita Tropical Fruit Company B.V.

Chiquita UK Limited

ChiquitaStore.com L.L.C.

Chiriqui Land Company

CILPAC Establishment

Cioffi, Michael

Coast Citrus Distributors Holding Company

v
 USCA11 Case: 19-13926 Date
(7 ofFiled:
21) 08/18/2021 Page: 7 of 18

Cohen, Millstein, Sellers & Toll, PLLC

Collingsworth, Terrence P.

Compañía Agrícola de Nipe, S.A.

Compañía Agrícola de Rio Tinto

Compañía Agrícola del Guayas

Compañía Agrícola e Industrial Ecuaplantation, S.A.

Compañía Agrícola Sancti-Spiritus, S.A.

Compañía Bananera Atlántica Limitada

Compañía Bananera Guatemateca Independinte, S.A.

Compañía Bananera La Estrella, S.A.

Compañía Bananera Los Laureles, S.A.

Compañía Bananera Monte Blanco, S.A.

Compañía Caronas, S.A.

Compañía Cubana de Navegación Costanera

Compañía Frutera América S.A.

Compañía La Cruz, S.A.

Compañía Mundimar, S.A.

Compañía Productos Agrícolas de Chiapas, S.A. de C.V.

Compañía Tropical de Seguros, S.A.

Conrad & Scherer LLP

vi
 USCA11 Case: 19-13926 Date
(8 ofFiled:
21) 08/18/2021 Page: 8 of 18

Costa Frut S.A.C.

Covington & Burling LLP

Danone Chiquita Fruits SAS

Dante, Frank

Davies, Patrick

De La Calle Restrepo, José Miguel

De La Calle Londoño y Posada Abogados

DeLeon, John

Dimensional Fund Advisors LP

DLA Piper

Duraiswamy, Shankar

Dyer, Karen C.

Earthrights, International, Inc.

Exportadora Chiquita - Chile Ltda.

Exportadora de Frutas Frescas Ltda.

Financiera Agro-Exportaciones Limitada

Financiera Bananera Limitada

FMR LLC

Fresh Express Incorporated

Fresh Holding C.V.

vii
 USCA11 Case: 19-13926 Date
(9 ofFiled:
21) 08/18/2021 Page: 9 of 18

Fresh International Corp.

Friedheim, Cyrus

Frutas Elegantes, S. de R.L. de C.V.

Fundación Para El Desarrollo de Comunidades Sostenibles en el

Valle de Sula

G & V Farms, LLC

G W F Management Services Ltd.

Garland, James

Girardi, Thomas V.

Gould, Kimberly

Gravante, Jr., Nicholas A.

Great White Fleet Liner Services Ltd.

Great White Fleet Ltd.

Green, James K.

Guralnick, Ronald S.

Hall, John

Heaton Holdings Ltd.

Heli Abel Torrado y Asociados

Hemisphere XII Investors Limited

Hills, Roderick, the Estate of

Hospital La Lima, S.A. de C.V.

viii
 USCA11 Case: 19-13926 Date
(10 of
Filed:
21) 08/18/2021 Page: 10 of 18

Ilara Holdings, Inc.

Inversiones Huemul Limitada

James K. Green, P.A.

Jimenez Train, Magda M.

Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A.

Jones, Stanton

Keiser, Charles

King, William B.

Kistinger, Robert

Lack, Walter J.

Law Firm of Jonathan C. Reiter

Law Offices of Chavez-DeLeon

Leon, The Honorable Richard J.

Markman, Ligia

Marra, The Honorable Kenneth A.

Martin, David

Martinez Resly, Jaclyn

McCawley, Sigrid S.

Mosier, Mark

Mozabanana, Lda.

ix
 USCA11 Case: 19-13926 Date
(11 of
Filed:
21) 08/18/2021 Page: 11 of 18

Olson, Robert

O'Melveny & Meyers

Ordman, John

Parker Waichman LLP

Philips, Layn

Prías Cadavid Abogados

Prías, Juan Carlos

Priedheim, Alissa

Procesados IQF, S.A. de C.V.

Processed Fruit Ingredients, BVBA

Promotion et Developpement de la Culture Bananiere

Puerto Armuelles Fruit Co., Ltd.

Rapp, Cristopher

Reiter, Jonathan C.

Ronald Guralnick, P.A.

Scarola, Jack

Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.

Seguridad Colosal, S.A.

Servicios Chiquita Chile Limitada

Servicios de Logística Chiquita, S.A.

x
 USCA11 Case: 19-13926 Date
(12 of
Filed:
21) 08/18/2021 Page: 12 of 18

Servicios Logísticos Chiquita, S.R.L

Servicios Proem Limitada

Silbert, Earl

Simons, Marco

Skinner, William

Sperling, Jonathan

Spiers N.V.

Sprague, Ashley M.

St. James Investments, Inc.

Stewart, Thomas

Stubbs, Sidney

Tela Railroad Company Ltd.

The Vanguard Group

TransFRESH Corporation

Tsacalis, William

UNIPO G.V., S.A.

V.F. Transportation, L.L.C.

Verdelli Farms, Inc.

Western Commercial International Ltd.

Wichmann, William J.

xi
 USCA11 Case: 19-13926 Date
(13 of
Filed:
21) 08/18/2021 Page: 13 of 18

Wiesner & Asociados Ltda. Abogados

Wiesner, Eduardo A.

Wilkins, Robert

Willkie Farr & Gallagher

Wolf, Paul

Wolosky, Lee S.

Zack, Stephen N

Zhejiang Chiquita-Haitong Food Company Limited

Zuleta, Alberto

Certification

I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge, the above is a complete

list of persons having an interest in this case.

/s/ Paul Wolf

________________________
Paul Wolf, D.C. Bar #480285
Attorney for Appellants
Doe 378 and 840

August 22, 2020

xii
 USCA11 Case: 19-13926 Date
(14 of
Filed:
21) 08/18/2021 Page: 14 of 18

Come now the Plaintiff-Appellants, Does 378 and 840, to move the Court

pursuant to General Order 45 of July 6, 2020, to conduct Oral Arguments in this

Appeal by video and to divide the Plaintiff-Appellants' time in half. Conducting

the arguments by video will keep everyone safe during the pandemic, and allow the

thousands of Plaintiff-Appellants to watch the arguments live-streamed on the

internet.

In the alternative, if the time is too limited for this to be practical, the Court

should allow undersigned counsel to conduct the arguments. A review of the briefs

presented by the Wolf and Non-Wolf Plaintiff-Appellants shows that our arguments

are more suitable for Appellate review. The Wolf Appellants (Doe 378 and Doe

840) identified three questions presented in this appeal: (1) whether the District

Court erred by finding the summary judgment record insufficient to support a jury

verdict in Appellants' favor; (2) whether the District Court erred by requiring

Appellants to know the precise identity of the killers, when all they had to show

was that the person who caused Appellants injuries was supported by the Appellee;

and (3) whether the District Court erred in applying the Daubert standard to a law

enforcement expert. See Civil Appeal Statement at 2, Cross-Motion to Vacate and

Remand at 10, filed on November 13, 2019, and Opening Brief filed on March 4,

2020. In comparison, the Non Wolf Appellants' Opening Brief, filed on May 29,

2020, is more than 100 pages long, and is mostly concerned with the details of the

1
 USCA11 Case: 19-13926 Date
(15 of
Filed:
21) 08/18/2021 Page: 15 of 18

hearsay exceptions applied in the bellwether cases. It is a lengthy compendium of

nearly everything that could be argued on appeal. The Court should agree that the

standards of review are what need to be defined, rather than focusing on the

application of hearsay exceptions, which are full of trivial details.

Undersigned counsel conferred with all of the attorneys in the Non-Wolf

cases, who have yet to substantively respond. See Exhibit 1, attached hereto.

Attorney Paul Hoffman, who presented oral argument in the previous appeal in this

case, Antonio Carrizosa, et al. v. Chiquita Brands International, et al., Case No.

12-14898, responded by asking me to send my briefs to him, suggesting that he

hasn't even read them. Id. I have never been able to confer with the other counsel

for Plaintiff-Appellants on scheduling matters, and do not expect to ever receive a

substantive reply.

In the first Appeal in this case, Carrizosa, the Court didn't allow the Wolf

Appellants any time during the Oral argument, despite the fact that undersigned

counsel represents the majority of the Plaintiff-Appellants.1 The arguments we

1
Undersigned counsel represents 144 families in Case No.
08-80465-CIV-MARRA, Does 1-144 v. CBI; 2146 families in Case No.
17-80475-CIV-MARRA, Does 1-2146 v. CBI; and 254 families in Case No.
11-80405-CIV-MARRA, Does 1-254 v. CBI. (The 976 plaintiffs in the case
caption are a subset of 2,146 plaintiffs who sued individual defendants but not the
corporation, for statute of limitations reasons.) The Non-Wolf Plaintiffs have never
counted their total number of cases, but represent approximately 2,500 individual
plaintiffs, according to the District Court. If there are 4 legal heirs in each family
(an estimate), each represented by the personal representative of the estate,

2
 USCA11 Case: 19-13926 Date
(16 of
Filed:
21) 08/18/2021 Page: 16 of 18

presented in our briefs weren't emphasized or considered by the Court. In that

appeal, the Court ruled on Attorney Hoffman's Motion to Allocate Time, April 16,

2014, the very next day, on April 17, 2014, before undersigned counsel could even

respond. See Exhibits 1-4 to Appellants Does 1-976 Cross-Motion to Vacate and

Remand, filed on November 13, 2019 at 5; Exhibit 1, Order; Exhibit 2, Motion to

Allocate Time at 5 (describing undersigned counsel as a "hold-out," and omitting

mention that I represent the majority of the plaintiffs in the MDL); and Exhibit 3,

Response to Motion to Extend Time at 1-2 ("Despite Mr. Hoffman's declaration

that he is lead counsel in the MDL, the District Court has never recognized him as

such." and "My long-time dispute with Mr. Hoffman and his group is based on my

accusation that they are engaged in a witness-paying conspiracy, which has now

been reasonably proven in the public filings in Drummond v. Collingsworth, No.

11-cv-3695-RDP (N.D. Ala.)), all attached thereto. 2

Finally, on November 19, 2019, the Non-Wolf Appellants filed a Motion to

Consolidate Briefing, attempting to prevent undersigned counsel from filing any

undersigned counsel represents about (173 + 2146 + 254) x 4 = 10,292.

Plaintiff-Appellants, or about 80% of the total number of Plaintiffs.
2
Counsel for the Non Wolf Plaintiff-Appellants have also bribed witnesses in this
case, although the District Court expressed little concern over it. A key witness
named Raul Hasbun testified that he was offered between 3-5 million dollars for
his testimony, "depending on the outcome of the case." He also testified that he
had personal knowledge about all of the bellwether cases, even though this couldn't
possibly be true, since there are thousands of murders at issue, from all across
Colombia. This may not be a reason to exclude the Non Wolf Appellants, but their
arguments are largely based on tainted evidence.

3
 USCA11 Case: 19-13926 Date
(17 of
Filed:
21) 08/18/2021 Page: 17 of 18

briefs in this Appeal. Undersigned counsel opposed on February 18, 2020, and the

Non Wolf Appellants Replied on February 24, 2020. We filed our Opening Brief

almost four weeks early, on March 4, 2020, to make sure that it was at least part of

the record in the case. In contrast, we are only asking to divide the time and be

heard.

CONCLUSION

This Court's role is to clarify the law and the standards used by the District

Court, not to micromanage the application of hearsay exceptions. The majority of

the Plaintiff-Appellants have had no voice in the District Court, nor in the Court of

Appeals. Instead of recognizing the rights of the litigants, the District Court has

allowed well-known, but unscrupulous lawyers to control the litigation, and

allowed a witness bribery conspiracy to destroy the testimony of at least one key

witness. The Wolf Appellants have moved the District Court, and this Court,

pursuant to Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26

(1998), for remand back to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,

where their claims were first-filed.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Paul Wolf

_______________________
Paul Wolf, DC Bar #480285
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellants
Doe 378 and Doe 840

4
 USCA11 Case: 19-13926 Date
(18 of
Filed:
21) 08/18/2021 Page: 18 of 18

August 18, 2021

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify, that on this 18th of August, 2021, I filed the foregoing response
with the Clerk of the Court using the Court's Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system,
which will send notices to all counsel receiving electronic notices in this case.

/s/ Paul Wolf

_______________
Paul Wolf

Certificate of Compliance with Type-Volume Limitation

Pursuant to FRAP 27 and 32(g)(1), I hereby certify that this response

complies with the type-limitation of 5,200 words, and contains 812 words,
excluding the caption and certifications.

/s/ Paul Wolf

_______________
Paul Wolf

5
USCA11 Case: 19-13926 (19
DateofFiled:
21) 08/18/2021 Page: 1 of 3

Exhibit 1
8/18/2021 Yahoo Mail - Re: Appeal 19-13926 Does 1-976 v CBI
USCA11 Case: 19-13926 (20
DateofFiled:
21) 08/18/2021 Page: 2 of 3

Re: Appeal 19-13926 Does 1-976 v CBI

From: hoffpaul@aol.com

To: paulwolf@yahoo.com

Date: Tuesday, August 17, 2021, 11:50 AM GMT-5

Thanks
 
In a message dated 8/17/2021 6:48:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, paulwolf@yahoo.com writes:
 

Here you go. I think these five briefs were all that were filed in the Appeal.

On Sunday, August 15, 2021, 03:26:21 PM GMT-5, hoffpaul@aol.com <hoffpaul@aol.com> wrote:

Dear Paul:

      I will respond to your e mail after I am able to consult with everyone.  I do think that doing the argument
remotely makes sense in the circumstances especially given the COVID situation in Florida.

    Could you send me your briefs so I can review them to see how they are different or overlap?

    

    Paul

In a message dated 8/12/2021 12:14:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, paulwolf@yahoo.com writes:

 

>  
> Dear Counsel - 
>
> 
>
> I just acknowledged receipt of the notice that oral arguments in this appeal will be on October 5, 2021.  Can we
agree to divide the appellants' time 50/50?  I would like to present my arguments first, and think that's fair since I
was not able to present at all in the earlier ATS appeal.  Our arguments are different, with my briefs focused on
the standards of review and yours more focused on the application of hearsay exceptions.  Also, whether you
think we should do the arguments by video.  I would prefer this because my clients would be able to watch it live
streamed, but am OK either way.
See https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/courtdocs/clk/GeneralOrder45Amended.pdf
>

1/2
8/18/2021 Yahoo Mail - Re: Appeal 19-13926 Does 1-976 v CBI
USCA11 Case: 19-13926 (21
DateofFiled:
21) 08/18/2021 Page: 3 of 3
> 
>
> Please let me know your position on this.
>
> 
>
> Sincerely,
>
> 
>
> 
>
> Paul Wolf
>

2/2