In re Chiquita Brands International: Chiquita’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaints

We have been following the Chiquita Brands International, Inc. (“Chiquita”) case since 2007.  In an earlier post, we reported the court set a deadline of February 26 for any amended complaints to be filed.  On April 9, Chiquita filed its Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaints.  This motion pertains to the case filed under the Alien Tort Claims Act. 

Chiquita continues to rely on Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., in which the Second Circuit held knowledge alone does not suffice for the required mental state for aiding and abetting liability; intent must also be present.  582 F.3d 244 (2nd Cir. 2009).  Chiquita uses this case to illustrate that it did not act with purpose.  Chiquita claims that the amended complaints “embellish” prior allegations regarding Chiquita’s support of the paramilitaries in order to meet the Presbyterian Church of Sudan mens rea standard. 

Chiquita also introduces new case law from Sinaltrainal v. Coca Cola, holding that acts of violence by Columbian paramilitaries did not qualify as state action or war crimes.  578 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2009).  In Sinaltrainal, Columbian trade union representatives brought an action against Coca Cola under the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”) and the Torture Victims Protection Act (“TVPA”), alleging Coca Cola financed and collaborated with Columbian paramilitaries in acts of murder and torture against employees.  To initiate a state action based claim under the ATS, the plaintiff must assert the tortfeaser and the state were involved in a relationship involving the violent acts. The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the lawsuit against Coca Cola, concluding the Columbian government was not involved in or aware of the violent acts alleged in the complaints.

Chiquita contends that the present actions are unlike Sinaltrainal, where the plaintiffs were employees of Coca Cola, because the plaintiffs here have no connection to Chiquita.  Chiquita argues that permitting the plaintiffs’ claims to proceed would open the floodgates to liability lawsuits by foreign plaintiffs during periods of conflict abroad. 

Additionally, Chiquita employs the holding from Ashcroft v. Iqbal, where the Supreme Court held that plaintiffs must plead facts, and not conclusory accusations, to support plaintiff’s claims of liability.  129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009).  Chiquita draws on Iqbal to argue the plaintiffs’ amended complaints do not raise any facts that would support a finding of liability on Chiquita’s part. 

Chiquita has requested the court dismiss the plaintiff’s lawsuit with prejudice.  We will continue to report on the case as it develops.

The primary materials for this post can be found on the DU Corporate Governance website.

Comments

[Anon]

I think this part is wrong:

"Chiquita employs the holding from Ashcroft v. Iqbal, where the Eleventh Circuit held that plaintiffs must plead facts, and not conclusory accusations, to support plaintiff’s claims of liability. 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009). Chiquita draws on Iqbal to argue the plaintiffs’ amended complaints do not raise any facts that would support a finding of liability on Chiquita’s part."

It was the Supreme Court that held you must pled facts giving rise to a plausible claim (as they had in Twombley a few years earlier). To the extent that you mean the court below, it was the Second Circuit -- not the Eleventh.

[Katharine Jensen]

Thank you very much for pointing out that oversight. The court name has been changed in the post.