Case: 19-13926 Date Filed: 02/18/2020 Page: 1 of 6

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 OPPOSITION

TO JOINT MOTION OF APPELLANTS IN ALL BUT ONE CASE
AND APPELLEES IN ALL CASES TO ADOPT CONSOLIDATED
BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND INCREASE WORD LIMIT FOR
CONSOLIDATED BRIEFS
____________________________________________

Paul Wolf, DC Bar #480285

P.O. Box 21840
Washington, D.C. 20009
Telephone (202) 431-6986
Fax n/a
Attorney for Plaintiff-
Appellants-Cross-Appellees
Doe 378 and Doe 840
 Case: 19-13926 Date Filed: 02/18/2020 Page: 2 of 6

Certificate of Interested Persons

I hereby certify that the persons with interests in this case haven't changed
since I filed my original Certificate of Interested Persons, signed November 12,
2019, last filed with Doe 378 and Doe 840s Opposition to Movants first Motion to
Consolidate Briefing, on November 13, 2019.

/s/ Paul Wolf

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

ARGUMENT

Does 378 and 840 oppose the Joint Motion to Consolidate the Briefing, to

the extent their own briefs are impacted by it. If counsel for the other Plaintiff-

Appellants want to file a joint brief and extend the page limits for it, Does 378 and

840 have no objection. However, as they have already explained in their

Opposition to the Movants first Motion to Consolidate the Briefing and Cross-

Motion to Remand filed on November 13, 2019, their theory of the case, the types

of experts used, and types of documents offered to oppose summary judgment are

entirely different from those represented by Attorney Scarola. (the so-called "non-

Wolf" Plaintiffs).

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 (i) provides that:

(i) Briefs in a Case Involving Multiple Appellants or Appellees. In a case

involving more than one appellant or appellee, including consolidated cases,
any number of appellants or appellees may join in a brief, and any party may

1
 Case: 19-13926 Date Filed: 02/18/2020 Page: 3 of 6

adopt by reference a part of another’s brief. Parties may also join in reply
briefs.

This Rule clearly contemplates the right of an independently-represented

party to be heard in the court of appeals. I have not agreed to confidentiality with

Attorney Scarola or his group, or communicated with them without including

counsel for Chiquita, for more than ten years. No information was shared in

discovery. On the contrary, they made it impossible for us to participate in

common discovery in the District Court.

I've litigated these claims independently for the last decade, and have a

different legal strategy, particularly with regard to expert witnesses. My witnesses

include the FBI case agent in the underlying criminal case, Manuel Ortega, and a

former employee of the Colombian agency Accion Social, named Carlos Eusse.

Their expertise comes from personal knowledge gained through direct, first-hand

involvement in events, rather than through analyzing representations constructed

by others. This type of expertise isn't based on testability or the scientific method.

The "non-Wolf" Plaintiffs' experts are university professors who've studied the

Colombian conflict, and whose methodologies must be shown to be "scientific"

under Daubert.

The non-Wolf Plaintiffs have also failed to produce basic documents like

death certificates, autopsy reports, and checks from Accion Social, the Colombian

government agency that pays the equivalent of about $10,000. to the family of each
2
 Case: 19-13926 Date Filed: 02/18/2020 Page: 4 of 6

war crime victim.1 This is the documentary evidence that is readily available to the

Plaintiffs, and should generally be admissible as business records, as long as

"another qualified witness" - apart from the document's author - introduces it. No

other counsel joined in our Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Negligence

Per Se, or has moveed the District Court for remand. Finally, my clients come

from a very small geographic region called Urabá, while other Plaintiffs in the

MDL were killed all across the country by a variety of different AUC blocks.

The caption for this appeal, Does 1-976 v. Chiquita Brands, refers to a

complaint I filed on behalf of 976 victims of the AUC. Does 378 and 840 filed the

first Notice of Appeal of any party, on October 3, 2019. DE 2568.2 They appealed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1291, to provide an alternative ground for the appeal,

which had already been certified by the District Court pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 54(b). Counsel for the other Appellants filed Notices of Appeal

1
One of the Plaintiffs in the Manjarres complaint submitted correspondence with
the Colombian Commisison of Justice and Peace, a component of the Colombian
Attorney General's Office ("Fiscalia"). The District Court found that it was not a
final decision sufficient to create inference of AUC responsibility.
2
Not only were Does 378 and 840 the first to appeal: other counsel missed
deadlines to file their Civil Appeal Statements and Certificates of Interested
Persons. Two years ago, Does 378 and 840 appeared on time in Florida for their
depositions, on only 60 days notice. That's not a lot of time to get a passport and
visa to the U.S. No other counsel were able to produce their bellwether plaintiffs
on time in the first round, some took up to a year to appear, and most didn't ever
appear. The difference is that I spent about two years living in Urabá and working
with my clients, whom I update on a weekly basis on Facebook (Asesorías Paul). I
have the same people working for me in Colombia as I had 12 years ago.
3
 Case: 19-13926 Date Filed: 02/18/2020 Page: 5 of 6

over the course of the following week. According to the 11th Circuit's Internal

Operating Procedures:

Briefs in Consolidated Cases and Appeals. Unless the parties otherwise

agree or the court otherwise orders, the party who filed the first notice of
appeal shall be deemed the appellant for purposes of FRAP 28, 30, and 31
and the accompanying circuit rules.
Internal Operating Procedure #7. Therefore, Doe 378 and Doe 840 should be

deemed "the appellant" for purposes of FRAP 28, 30, and 31. FRAP 31 pertains to

the serving and filing of briefs.

This is the second atttempt by the Movants to prevent me from filing a brief.

The Court denied the first motion within a day, as undersigned counsel was filing

an Opposition and Cross Motion to Remand, on November 13, 2019. The

Movants show no good cause for amending the schedule, or for the Court to depart

from its denial of the first motion. Preventing Doe 378 and 840 from filing a brief

is not a good cause.

Conclusion

Instead of granting the Joint Motion, the Court should ORDER that Chiquita

may respond separately to this appeal, within the ordinary page limits. In the

alternative, the Court could GRANT Doe 378 and 840's Cross Motion to Remand

and not bind these Plaintiffs with this appeal.

4
 Case: 19-13926 Date Filed: 02/18/2020 Page: 6 of 6

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Paul Wolf

___________________________
Paul Wolf, DC Bar #480285
Attorney for Doe 378 and Doe 840
P.O. Box 21840
Washington, D.C. 20009
(202) 431-6986
Fax: n/a
paulwolf@yahoo.com

February 16, 2019

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify, that on this 16th of February, 2020, 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 entering appearances in this
case.
/s/ Paul Wolf
_______________
Paul Wolf

Certificate of Compliance

I hereby certify that this response complies with the type-limitation in FRAP
32(g)(1), and contains 871 words, excluding the cover and certifications.

/s/ Paul Wolf

_______________
Paul Wolf