19-13926 Chiquita Opposition To Remand

Case: 19-13926 Date Filed: 11/25/2019 Page: 1 of 24
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DOE, et al.
v.
CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
No. 19-13926-C
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT, CHIQUITA BRANDS

INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS DOE 378
AND 840’S CROSS-MOTION TO VACATE AND REMAND
TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT, CHIQUITA BRANDS

INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED
PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE
Pursuant to Rule 26.1-1(a) of the Eleventh Circuit Rules, counsel for appellee,
Chiquita Brands International, Inc. (“Chiquita”), hereby certifies that no publicly
held corporation owns 10% or more of Chiquita’s stock. Counsel also certifies that
the following is a complete list of the trial judge, all attorneys, persons, associations
of persons, firms, partnerships, or corporations (none of which is publicly listed)
known to Chiquita 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:
Abrams, Louis D.
Agrícola Bananera Santa Rita, S. de R. L.
Agroindustria Santa Rosa de Lima, S.A.
Alamo Land Company
Alexander, Lauren
Alsama, Ltd.
American Produce Company
Americana de Exportación S.A.
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
ASD de Venezuela, S.A.
C-1 of 11
B C Systems, Inc.
Bandy, Kevin M.
Blalack II, K. Lee
Blank Rome LLP
Blue Fish Holdings Establishment
Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
Borja, Ludy Rivas
Borja Hernandez, Genoveva Isabel
Brackman, Lisa J.
Bronson, Ardith M.
Brown, Benjamin D.
Buckley LLP
Burman, John Michael
Carrillo, Arturo
Carter, Melanie
Charagres, Inc., S.A.
Chiquita (Canada) Inc.
Chiquita Brands Costa Rica Sociedad de Responsabilidad Limitada
Chiquita Banana Ecuador CB Brands S.A.
Chiquita Brands International Sàrl
C-2 of 11
Chiquita Brands International, Inc.
Chiquita Brands L.L.C.
Chiquita Compagnie des Bananes
Chiquita Europe B.V.
Chiquita Finance Company Limited
Chiquita For Charities
Chiquita Fresh North America L.L.C.
Chiquita Guatemala, S.A.
Chiquita Holding SA
Chiquita Holdings Limited
Chiquita Honduras Company Ltd.
Chiquita Logistic Services El Salvador Ltda.
Chiquita Logistic Services Guatemala, Limitada
Chiquita Logistic Services Honduras, S. de R.L.
Chiquita Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V.
Chiquita Nature and Community Foundation
Chiquita Panama L.L.C.
Chiquita Relief Fund - We Care
Chiquita Tropical Fruit Company B.V.
Chiquita Tropical Ingredients, Sociedad Anónima
C-3 of 11
Chiquita US Corporation
Chiriqui Land Company
Chomsky, Judith Brown
Cioffi, Michael L.
CILPAC Establishment
Cohen Millstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
Collingsworth, Terrence Patrick
Colombian Institute of International Law
Compañía Agrícola de Nipe, S.A.
Compañía Agrícola e Industrial Ecuaplantation, S.A.
Compañía Agrícola Sancti-Spiritus, S.A.
Compañía Bananera La Ensenada, S. de R.L.
Compañía Caronas, S.A.
Compañía Cubana de Navegación Costanera
Compañía Frutera América S.A.
Compañía La Cruz, S.A.
Compañía Productos Agrícolas de Chiapas, S.A. de C.V.
Compañía Tropical de Seguros, S.A.
Conrad & Scherer, LLP
Dante, Frank A.
C-4 of 11
Davenport, Jonathan
De Leon, John
Desarrollos Agroindustriales del Istmo, S.de R.L.
DLA Piper LLP (US)
Doe 7, Jane*1
Doe 7, John*
Doe 11, Juana*
Doe 11A, Minor*
Doe 46, Jane*
Durango, Pastora
EarthRights International
Exportadora de Frutas Frescas Ltda.
Fontalvo Camargo, Juvenal Enrique
Freidheim, Cyrus
Fresh Express Incorporated
1
Jane Doe 7, John Doe 7, Juana Doe 11, Minor Doe 11A, Jane Doe 46, the unnamed
children of Jose Lopez 339, and Juana Perez 43A were proceeding in the district
court under pseudonym until the district court order that required each to proceed
under his or her actual name. On July 10, 2019, this Court stayed enforcement of the
district court’s order precluding continued use of pseudonym by these Appellants
pending resolution of the interlocutory appeal in Case No. 19-11494, which has been
fully briefed. The real name of each anonymous Appellant will be furnished if
directed by this Court. The pseudonymous Appellants are denoted herein by an
asterisk.
C-5 of 11
Fresh Express Vegetable LLC
Fresh Holding C.V.
Fresh International Corp.
Fryszman, Agnieszka M.
Frutas Elegantes, S. de R.L. de C.V.
G W F Management Services Ltd.
Golembe, Stephen
Graziano, MacKennan
Great White Fleet Corp.
Great White Fleet Liner Services Ltd.
Great White Fleet Ltd.
Green, James Kellogg
Heaton Holdings Ltd.
Herz, Richard
Hills, Carla as personal representative of the Estate of Roderick M. Hills, Sr.
Hoffman, Paul L.
International Rights Advocates
Istmo Holding LLC One
Istmo Holding LLC Two
James K. Green, P.A.
C-6 of 11
Jones, R. Stanton
Jost-Creegan, Kelsey
Keiser, Charles
Kenny Nachwalter, P.A.
Kistinger, Robert
Krakoff, David S.
Krezalek, Martin S.
Kroeger, Leslie M.
La Ensenada Holding LLC One
La Ensenada Holding LLC Two
Landon III, Robert D.W.
Law Firm of Jonathan C. Reiter
Law Offices of Chavez & De Leon, P.A.
Law Offices of Judith Chomsky
Leopold, Theodore J.
Lindner, Keith
Lopez 339, Jose (unnamed children of)*
Marcus, Bradley A.
Marcus Neiman & Rashbaum
Marra, Kenneth A.
C-7 of 11
McCawley, Sigrid
Melitsky, Anton
Mitchell, Douglass
Mora Lemus, Nancy
Mrachek, Lorin Louis
Mrachek, Fitzgerald, Rose, Konopa, Thomas & Weiss, P.A.
Munoz, Gloria Eugenia
Murphy, Melissa F.
Murray, Jr., John Brian T.
Neiman, Jeffrey A.
Olson, Robert
O’Melveny & Myers LLP
Orlacchio, Adam V.
Perez 43A, Juana*
Portnoi, Dimitri D.
Powers, Sean
Preheim, Elissa J.
Procesados IQF, S.A. de C.V.
Reiter, Jonathan
Ronald Guralnick, P.A.
C-8 of 11
Santa Rita Holding LLC One
Santa Rita Holding LLC Two
Scarola, John
Scherer III, William R.
Schonbrun, Seplow, Harris & Hoffman LLP
Searcy Denny Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, PA
Servicios Chiquita Chile Limitada
Servicios de Logistica Chiquita, S.A.
Servicios Logisticos Chiquita, S.R.L
Silbert, Earl
Simons, Marco Benjamin
St. James Investments, Inc.
Soto, Edward
Stephen J. Golembe & Associates, P.A.
Stewart, Thomas H.
Three Sisters Holding LLC
Torres Torres, Ana Ofelia
Tsacalis, William
TransFRESH Corporation
UNIPO G.V., S.A.
C-9 of 11
United Fruit Transports S.A.
United Reefer Services S.A.
Vahlsing, Marissa
Villegas Echavarria, Maria Emilse
Wayne, Charles B.
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Wichmann, William J.
William J. Wichmann, P.A.
Wolf, Paul
Wolosky, Lee
Yanez, Anthony
Counsel for Chiquita further certifies that no publicly traded company or
corporation has an interest in the outcome of the case or appeal.
Dated: November 25, 2019 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Michael L. Cioffi

Michael L. Cioffi
Thomas H. Stewart
Kevin M. Bandy
BLANK ROME LLP
1700 PNC Center
201 East Fifth Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Tel: (513) 362-8701/04/38
Email: cioffi@blankrome.com
stewart@blankrome.com
kbandy@blankrome.com
C-10 of 11
Frank A. Dante
Melissa F. Murphy
BLANK ROME LLP
One Logan Square
130 N. 18th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 569-5645/5334
Email: dante@blankrome.com
mfmurphy@blankrome.com
Counsel for Defendant-Appellee/Cross-

Appellant, Chiquita Brands International,
Inc.
C-11 of 11
INTRODUCTION
This Opposition addresses the affirmative relief requested in Appellants Doe
378 and Does 840’s Opposition to Appellee’s [sic] Motion to Consolidate Appeals,
and Cross-Motion to Vacate and Remand to the District of Columbia (the “Cross-
Motion”). See Fed. R. App. 27(a)(3)(B).2 The Cross-Motion requests relief beyond
the Court’s statutory authority to grant, raises issues beyond the scope of their
appeal, seeks relief for parties below not before the Court in this appeal, and
improperly argues the merits of this appeal. The Cross-Motion is utterly devoid of
merit and should be denied out of hand.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) below arose out of the drug war and
internal conflict in Colombia during the 1990s and early 2000s. Thousands of
Colombian nationals represented by seven groups of plaintiffs’ attorneys sued in
various district courts in this country and alleged that their decedents had died at the
2
The Cross-Motion responds to the Joint Motion of Appellants and Appellees to
Adopt Consolidated Briefing Schedule and Increase Word Limit for Consolidated
Briefs (“Joint Motion”), which was “RETURNED UNFILED . . . because the
briefing schedule has not yet issued.” (See Clerk’s Letter dated November 13, 2019
entered on docket). Because the Joint Motion was returned unfiled, the portion of
the Cross-Motion that opposes the request for consolidated of briefs and increased
word limits of briefs is not yet ripe for consideration and, therefore, is not addressed
herein.
1
hands of the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (“AUC”), a Colombian paramilitary
group that demobilized in 2006. Rather than sue any member of the AUC alleged to
have killed their decedents, all plaintiffs instead sued Chiquita Brands International,
Inc. (“Chiquita”), alleging that payments extorted from Chiquita by the AUC
enabled AUC operatives to kill their decedents. Doe 378 and Doe 840 sued Chiquita
in the District Court of Columbia.3
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) centralized the cases
in the district court below. After years of motion practice on the pleadings including
a previous appeal to this Court (No. 12-14898), the plaintiffs’ claims were pared
down and discovery commenced. Pursuant to an agreed-upon bellwether case
selection process, the claims of Doe 378 and Doe 840 were among those selected by
the parties for full discovery procedures and later for summary judgment briefing.
Appellants’ claims ended with summary judgment in favor of Chiquita.
(Docket Entry 2551, copy attached as Exhibit B). The district court concluded based
3
Doe 378 is no longer proceeding under pseudonym but under her actual name,
Maria Emilse Villegas Eschavarria (See Docket Entry 2435, copy attached as Exhibit
A). Because the Cross-Motion refers to her as Doe 378, for the Court’s ease of
reference only, she is referred to by that former pseudonym herein. Doe 840 died
more than a year ago and a proper party (whom the Cross-Motion contends is Ludy
Rivas Borja) has never been substituted. Her appeal, therefore, is not properly before
the Court and will be addressed in a separate filing. Again, for ease of reference and
clarity only, she is referred to herein as Doe 840. Finally, for ease of reference only,
Doe 378 and Doe 840 are referred to herein as “Appellants.”
2
upon the evidentiary record that no reasonable jury could find that an AUC operative
killed any plaintiff’s decedent, including Doe 378’s decedent and Doe 840’s
decedent. (Id.). Because the ruling adjudicated fewer than all the claims of all the
parties, the district court considered and found no just reason for delay and entered
the Partial Final Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54(b) in Favor of All Defendants on
Claims of Designated Bellwether Plaintiffs (Docket Entry 2552, copy attached as
Exhibit C) that is the basis of these appeals.
ARGUMENT
The Cross-Motion is completely without merit and should be denied out of
hand.4 Appellants seek affirmative relief that is beyond the Court’s statutory
authority to grant. The Appellants’ requested relief is essentially that this Court not
decide the merits of their Rule 54(b) appeal in this MDL litigation but instead create
a means for the transferor court, the District of Columbia District Court (or its
appellate court, the District of Columbia Circuit Court), to decide the merits of
4
The Cross-Motion is a mishmash of non sequiturs, untenable grounds, improper
arguments on the merits of the Rule 54(b) final partial summary judgment on appeal,
and citations to irrelevant legal authorities. The Court would be justified upon its
own motion to impose sanctions upon Appellants’ counsel for filing the Cross-
Motion which is “without legal merit and cannot be supported by a reasonable
argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, or the
establishment of new law.” 11TH CIR. R. 27-4. See also McCurry v. Kenco Logistics
Servs., LLC, No. 18-3206, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 33319, at *16 (7th Cir. Nov. 7,
2019) (“Bad writing does not normally warrant sanctions, but we draw the line at
gibberish.”).
3
summary judgment against them. Chiquita is unaware of any legal authority—and
Appellants have cited none—that would permit such relief.
Appellants “make a Cross-Motion to Vacate the District Court’s order as it
applies to them, and order the District Court to remand these two cases back to the
D.C. District Court, along with the other plaintiffs in their complaints.” (Cross-
Motion, p. 1).5 After conceding that the “District Court had jurisdiction to dismiss
these cases [o]n summary judgment, and that Order is appealable to this Court” (id.,
pp. 9-10), Appellants nevertheless continue that the summary judgment order
“should be vacated, though, not because of lack of jurisdiction, but because the
issues should be decided by the trial court [the MDL transferor court, i.e., the District
of Columbia District Court where they originally filed their claims].” (Id., p. 10).
For their remarkable proposition that this Court has authority simply to vacate
the summary judgment entered against them before consideration of the merits of
their appeal of that very judgment, Appellants analogize to the rule that “the appeal
of an issue related to a deposition is heard by the court of appeals for the district
where the deposition is taken.” (Id.) (citing United States ex rel. Pogue v. Diabetes
Treatment Centers of Am., Inc., 238 F. Supp.2d 270 (D.D.C. 2002)). But United
5
Although left unstated, the “District Court’s Order” is presumably the order
granting summary judgment (Docket Entry 2551, copy attached as Exhibit B) that
Appellants listed in their notice of appeal (Docket Entry 2568, copy attached as
Exhibit D).
4
States ex rel. Pogue has no application here because that district court decision
involved consideration of a motion to quash a deposition subpoena, not the appeal
of a final judgment entered in an MDL court as here.
Even more remarkably, Appellants “request[] that their appeals be decided by
the D.C. Circuit.” (Cross-Motion, p. 8 n.9). As Appellants concede, the district court
below had jurisdiction to enter summary judgment and they themselves invoked this
Court’s jurisdiction to review that judgment. Indeed, it is well-established that the
court of appeals with jurisdiction over an MDL district court has jurisdiction over
the MDL court’s orders and rulings. Hill v. Henderson, 195 F.3d 671, 677-78 (D.C.
Cir. 1999); Astarte Shipping v. Allied Steel & Export Service, 767 F.2d 86, 87 (5th
Cir. 1985) (per curiam); Allegheny Airlines, Inc. v. LeMay, 448 F.2d 1341, 1344 (7th
Cir. 1971) (per curiam). See 28 U.S.C. § 1294 (“appeals from reviewable decisions
of [a district court] shall be taken to the court of appeals . . . for the circuit embracing
the district.”). This case law likewise disposes of Appellants’ remarkable positions
that this Court’s resolution of their appeals will be an “advisory opinion[]” (Cross-
Motion, p. 8) and that “11th Circuit law . . . isn’t binding [on these appeals].” (Id.)6
This Court, not the District of Columbia, has jurisdiction over Appellants’ appeal.
6
See also Cross-Motion, p. 7 (arguing the non sequitur that “this appeal wouldn’t
be binding authority on cases brought to trial in the District of Columbia” but “bind[]
only Doe 378 and Doe 840, whose cases were dismissed in summary judgment, but
would go to trial in the District of Columbia if they prevailed in this appeal”).
5
Alternatively, Appellants argue that the Court has the “inherent power . . . to
certify questions directly to another Circuit, avoiding the need to vacate the District
Court’s Order.” (Cross-Motion, p. 1 n.2). Although left unstated, as best Chiquita
can tell, the “questions” that Appellants seek for this Court to certify to the District
of Columbia Circuit are “issues of federal law” to be decided “according to the law
[of that circuit].”7 But this Court has squarely held that “[s]ince the federal courts
are all interpreting the same federal law, uniformity does not require that transferee
courts defer to the law of the transferor circuit.” Murphy v. F.D.I.C., 208 F.3d 959,
966 (11th Cir. 2000).8
7
Id., p. 1 n.2 (“the issues on appeal concern the standard for summary judgment,
and the use of circumstantial evidence supported by expert testimony to meet this
standard, which are questions of federal law”), p. 8 (the District of Colombia District
Court “would have the duty to reconsider issues of federal law according to the law
of its own circuit.”). See also id., p. 11 (“D.C. has the strongest interest in enforcing
federal laws making financing terrorist organizations a crime”).
8
Further, district courts both inside and outside this Circuit uniformly decide
dispositive motions using the federal legal standards of the circuit in which the
MDL-transferee court resides, without regard to where the cases were transferred
from. See, e.g., Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 3:15-cv-734-J-
20JRK, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168581, at **4-5 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 4, 2015); In re
Imagitas, Inc., Drivers’ Privacy Prot. Act Litig., No. 3:07-md-J-32JRK, 2011 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 150051, at *14 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 30, 2011) (citing Murphy, 208 F.3d at
965-66); Reynolds v. Gen. Elec. Co., No. 5:09-CV-80025-ER, 2012 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 65149, at *4-5 n.1 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 2, 2012); In re Toys “R” Us Delaware,
Inc. Fair & Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) Litig., No. MDL 08-1980
MMM (FMox), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133583 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2010) (noting
6
For their remarkable proposition that the Court has the authority to—and
should—certify questions of federal law to another circuit court (here, the District
of Columbia Circuit), Appellants cite only to Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating
Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (1988). But Christian was decided under 28 U.S.C. §
1295(a)(1) that expressly “grants the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
exclusive jurisdiction over ‘an appeal from a final decision of a district court of the
United States . . . if the jurisdiction of that court was based, in whole or in part on [a
federal patent statute] . . . .’” 486 U.S. at 807. See Allapattah Svcs., Inc. v. Exxon
Corp., 362 F.3d 739, 761 (11th Cir. 2004) (“the Constitution accords Congress the
exclusive power to determine the scope of . . . circuit court jurisdiction”). Christian
decidedly does not support the proposition that this Court has “inherent power” to
certify questions of federal law to other federal circuit courts, and Chiquita is
unaware of any statutory or other legal authority that this Court does.
Appellants also request that the Court “order the District Court to remand
these two cases back to the D.C. Circuit Court, along with the other plaintiffs in their
complaint.” (Cross-Motion, p. 1). This too is beyond the Court’s statutory or
inherent authority and further is beyond the scope of these Rule 54(b) appeals.
that courts of appeals and district courts “uniformly” apply the law of the transferee
circuit in MDL proceedings on questions of federal law).
7
As an initial matter, the claims of “other plaintiffs in [Appellants’]
complaints” are not before this Court. Those claims have not been adjudicated, in
the final partial summary judgment that Appellants appealed or otherwise, and the
“other plaintiffs” are not before the Court. “Attempts by non-parties to appeal a
district court’s final judgment generally must fail.” Southern Utah Wilderness
Alliance v. Kempthorne, 525 F.3d 966, 968 (10th Cir. 2008).
Moreover, only the JPML may remand transferred MDL cases to the
transferor district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). While true that the Court “has
mandamus jurisdiction over the JPML” (Cross-Motion, p.1 n.2), Appellants have
not filed for mandamus in this Court. See FED. R. APP. P. 21 (“A party petitioning
for a writ of mandamus . . . must file a petition with the circuit clerk . . . .”). Instead,
Appellants have invoked the Court’s appellate jurisdiction. (See Docket Entry 2568,
copy attached as Exhibit D).
As to the scope of these appeals, the order certified under Rule 54(b) that
Appellants specified for appeal was entered on September 5, 2019. (See Docket
Entry 2551, copy attached as Exhibit B). That order makes no ruling regarding—or
mention of—remanding Appellants’ claims to the District of Columbia District
Court, the transferor court. Appellants discuss orders entered and filings made after
September 5, 2019, including their renewed motion to remand pursuant to Lexecon
8
Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1988).9 These orders
and filings are not before the Court on these appeals: “Appellate jurisdiction over an
appeal from an interlocutory decision certified under Rule 54(b) is limited to the
ruling or orders certified by the district court.” Edwards v. Prime, Inc., 602 F.3d
1276, 1288 (11th Cir. 2010); Fogade v. ENB Revocable Trust, 263 F.3d 1274, 1296-
97 (11th Cir. 2001) (“Because no final judgment has been entered disposing of all
the claims in this case, our appellate jurisdiction is confined to the issues made
appealable under Rule 54(b).”).
Finally, Appellants spend the majority of their pages improperly arguing the
merits of their appeal including their “theory of the case” (Cross-Motion, pp. 10-11),
the summary judgment standard (id., pp. 11-14), the district court’s purportedly inapt
analogy to “market share” theory (id., pp. 14-15), and the Daubert challenge to their
expert (id., pp. 15-18). Of course, the merits of an appeal are properly presented in
the briefs, not by motion. FED. R. APP. P. 28.
CONCLUSION
For all of these reasons discussed above, the Court should deny Appellants’
Cross-Motion out of hand.
9
See Cross-Motion, pp. 3-4 & exhibits 5-9.
9
Dated: November 25, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

Michael L. Cioffi
Thomas H. Stewart
Kevin M. Bandy
BLANK ROME LLP
1700 PNC Center
201 East Fifth Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Tel: (513) 362-8701/04/38
Email: cioffi@blankrome.com
stewart@blankrome.com
kbandy@blankrome.com
Frank A. Dante
Melissa F. Murphy
BLANK ROME LLP
One Logan Square
130 N. 18th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 569-5645/5334
Email: dante@blankrome.com
mfmurphy@blankrome.com
Counsel for Defendant-Appellee/Cross-

Appellant, Chiquita Brands International,
Inc.
10
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMITATION
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 32(g)(1), I certify that this document complies
with the type-volume limit of Fed. R. App. P. 27(d)(2)(A) because, excluding the
parts of the document exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f), this document contains
2,372 words according to a word count using Microsoft Word, the word-processing
software used to prepare the document.
Dated: November 25, 2019 /s/ Michael L. Cioffi

Michael L. Cioffi
Attorney for Appellee Chiquita
Brands International, Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed this document with the Clerk of the
Court using the ECF system on November 25, 2019 which will automatically
generate and serve by e-mail a Notice of Docket Activity on Attorney Filers under
Fed. R. App. P. 25(c)(2).

Michael L. Cioffi

19-13926 Chiquita Opposition To Remand

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

19-13926 Chiquita Opposition To Remand

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case: 19-13926 Date Filed: 11/25/2019 Page: 1 of 24

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

DEFENDANT-APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT, CHIQUITA BRANDS

DEFENDANT-APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT, CHIQUITA BRANDS

Chiquita Brands International, Inc. (“Chiquita”), hereby certifies that no publicly

of persons, firms, partnerships, or corporations (none of which is publicly listed)

appeal, including subsidiaries, conglomerates, affiliates, and parent corporations,

and other identifiable legal entities related to a party:

Agrícola Bananera Santa Rita, S. de R. L.

Agroindustria Santa Rosa de Lima, S.A.

Alamo Land Company

American Produce Company

Americana de Exportación S.A.

Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

ASD de Venezuela, S.A.

Blalack II, K. Lee

Blank Rome LLP

Blue Fish Holdings Establishment

Boies Schiller Flexner LLP

Borja, Ludy Rivas

Borja Hernandez, Genoveva Isabel

Burman, John Michael

Charagres, Inc., S.A.

Chiquita (Canada) Inc.

Chiquita Brands Costa Rica Sociedad de Responsabilidad Limitada

Chiquita Banana Ecuador CB Brands S.A.

Chiquita Brands International Sàrl

Chiquita Brands International, Inc.

Chiquita Brands L.L.C.

Chiquita Compagnie des Bananes

Chiquita Europe B.V.

Chiquita Finance Company Limited

Chiquita For Charities

Chiquita Fresh North America L.L.C.

Chiquita Guatemala, S.A.

Chiquita Holdings Limited

Chiquita Honduras Company Ltd.

Chiquita Logistic Services El Salvador Ltda.

Chiquita Logistic Services Guatemala, Limitada

Chiquita Logistic Services Honduras, S. de R.L.

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

Chiquita Nature and Community Foundation

Chiquita Panama L.L.C.

Chiquita Relief Fund - We Care

Chiquita Tropical Fruit Company B.V.

Chiquita Tropical Ingredients, Sociedad Anónima

Chiriqui Land Company

Chomsky, Judith Brown

Cohen Millstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

Collingsworth, Terrence Patrick

Colombian Institute of International Law

Compañía Agrícola de Nipe, S.A.

Compañía Agrícola e Industrial Ecuaplantation, S.A.

Compañía Agrícola Sancti-Spiritus, S.A.

Compañía Bananera La Ensenada, S. de R.L.

Compañía Caronas, S.A.

Compañía Cubana de Navegación Costanera

Compañía Frutera América S.A.

Compañía La Cruz, S.A.

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

Compañía Tropical de Seguros, S.A.

Conrad & Scherer, LLP