Belteton-Rivera v. Coahoma Chemical ( 2001 )

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,
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 Chemical Company of
Texas and Best Fertilizer Company; STANDARD
FRUIT COMPANY; CHIQUITA BRANDS, INC.; DEL
MONTE FRESH PRODUCE, N.A.
Defendants-Appellees,
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,
Plaintiff - Appellant-Cross-Appellee,
versus
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,
Defendants-Appellees,
STANDARD FRUIT AND STEAMSHIP; DOLE FOOD
COMPANY; DOLE FRESH FRUIT COMPANY;
CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees-Cross-Appellants.
*****************************************************************
_____________________
No. 98-60510
_____________________
VALENTIN VALDEZ-C,
Plaintiff - Appellant-Cross-Appellee,
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.,
Defendants-Appellees,
STANDARD FRUIT AND STEAMSHIP; DOLE FOOD
COMPANY; DOLE FRESH FRUIT INTERNATIONAL;
CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees-Cross-Appellants.
*****************************************************************
_____________________
No. 98-60646
_____________________
EDGAR ARROYO-GONZALEZ; ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
EDGAR ARROYO-GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant-Cross-Appellee,
versus
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,
Defendants - Appellees-Cross-Appellants.
_________________________________________________________________
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.
8