Forum non conveniens

• Author: International Law Group, PLLC
• Pages: 139-140

Page 139

In 2001, seven union leaders from Guatemala (Plaintiffs) sued Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. and related companies (Defendants) in a Florida federal court The complaint charged that Defendants were liable for their mistreatment by Defendants' hired thugs in retaliation for their union activities. Their complaint is based on the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA).

During a 1999 labor dispute, SITRABI, the Guatemalan labor union for local plantation workers, was trying to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement with Defendants. When Defendants fired 918 workers during the negotiations, SITRABI filed a complaint in the Guatemalan Labor Court. Allegedly to intimidate the union leaders, however, Defendants hired private "security forces" who proceeded to hold the union leaders hostage and to abuse them for several hours. The unionists later obtained political asylum in the U.S.

In 2003, Defendants moved to dismiss based on forum non conveniens (FNC). The district court eventually dismissed on that basis. The district court noted, however, that the dismissal was "without prejudice to Plaintiffs' right to seek reconsideration if any of the Plaintiffs are required to appear in person in Guatemala in order to litigate their claims."

Page 140

Defendants appealed. In a 2 to 1 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirms.

With respect to the adequacy of the alternative forum, Plaintiffs argue that Guatemala is not safe for them and [that] Guatemalan courts are corrupt and inadequate to adjudicate political cases such as this one. The Court does not accept these arguments because the district court had provided for reconsideration if the Plaintiffs cannot litigate without having to return to Guatemala. As for the inadequacy of the Guatemalan courts, the prior proceedings in Florida state court had found the Guatemalan courts adequate. Thus, the doctrine of collateral estoppel precluded the federal court from relitigating that issue.

As for the private interest factors: "In Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947), the Supreme Court outlined the relevant public and private interest factors [in transferring litigation from one federal district to another within the U. S]. ... We have continued to recite the same list of private interests ever since Gilbert. ..."

"Following the state court, the district court addressed each of the Gilbert...