FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 25, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 14 3

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 7- cv -2 26 93 -PCH MIGUEL ANGEL SANCHEZ OSORIO, JUAN EVENOR TERCERO PRADO, VICTORINO RODRIGUEZ, FELIX PEDRO HERNANDEZ ESTRADA, LUCIO HERNANDEZ LAINEZ, MARIANO DE JESUS M ALTA NAVARRO, APOLONIO MARIANO MEJ IA, AMBR OSIO ARISTIDES ZAVALA, ISABEL DE ANGEL ES ESPINOZA ARAICA, NATIVIDAD GOMEZ, et a l., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff s - Ap pe ll an ts , vers us DOW CHEMICAL COM PANY, OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORP ORATION, a New York C or

po rat io n, DOLE FOOD COMP ANY, INC., SHELL OIL COMPANY, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees .__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 25 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, BARKETT an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Thi s ap pe al co nc ern s t he en fo rceabi li ty, un de r Fl or id a la w, of anov er-$ 97 m il li on jud gm en t a Ni cara gu anco urt awa rd ed15 0 Ni cara gu anag ric ul tu ral worke rs , th e p la in ti ffs he re, ag ai ns t Do w Che m ic al Co m pa ny (“ Dow”) an d Do le Fo odCo m

pa ny, Inc. (“ Dol e”), the de fen da nt s. Th e jud gm en t co m pe ns at edth es e worke rs forth e p hysic al an d p sycho lo gi cal in juri es th ey

purp orte dl y

su st ai ne d fro m ex po su re t o ape st ic id e, di br om oc ho lo ro pr op an e, Dow s up pl ie d andDol e us edonit s b an an a p la nt at io ns . The pl ai nt iff

s s eeken fo rcem en t o f th e Nic arag ua n ju dg m en t u nd er the Fl or id a Uni fo rm

Out -o f-co un try Fore ig n M on ey -Jud gm en ts Reco gn it io n Act , Fla . St at . §§ 55 .60 1– 55 .60 7 (t he “ Fl or id a Rec og ni ti on Act” or “ Act” ). The Fl or id a 1 Rec og ni ti on Act s ta te s t ha t “ an y ou t-o f-co un try fore ig n ju dg m en t tha t i s fi na l an d co nc lu si ve an d e nf

or ceab le wher e ren de red , eve n tho ug h an app eal th eref ro m is The district cour

t had subject matter

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 1 2pe nd in g o r is subjec t t o app eal ,” id . § 5 5.6 03 , “ is co nc lu si ve be twee n t he pa rti es to

th e ex te ntth atitgra nt s o r de ni es reco ve ry of asu m of m on ey ,” id . § 5 5.6 04 . The Act, h owe ve r, pr ov id es th ree m an da to ry an d e ig htdi sc ret io na ry

gro un ds on whi ch a fo rei gn jud gm en t i s n oten ti tl edto reco gn it io n. Se e id . § 5 5.6 05 (pr es en ti ng th e va rio us gro un ds forno nr eco gn it io n und er the Act) . The di stric t co urt, i n Os or io v. Do le Fo odCo ., 66 5 F . Sup p. 2 d 1 30 7 (S .D. Fl a. 20 09 ), in vo ke d fo urin de pe nd en t g ro un ds forno nr eco gn it io n u nd er the Act t o de ny reco gn it io n o f th e Nic arag ua n ju dg m en t an d d is m is se d t he pl ai nt iff s’ co m pl ai nt . Firs t, the di st ric t co urt ru le d t ha t i t co ul d n oten fo rce t he Nica rag ua n jud gm en t u nd er Fl or id a la w bec au se th e Nic arag uan c ou rt l ack edsubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on an d/ orpe rs on al juri sd ic ti on ov er the de fen da nt s. See Fla . Sta t. § 5 5.6 05 (1 )(b )– (c) (“ (1 ) An o ut -o f-co un try fore ig n ju dg m en t i s n otco nc lu si ve if: (b ) The for ei gn co urt d idno t h av e p ers on al juri sd ic ti on ov er the de fen da nt[or ] (c) The for ei gn co urt d idno t h av e juri sd ic ti onov er the subjec t m at te r.”). Sec on d, the di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d tha t the for ei gnjud gm en t co ul d n otbe reco gn iz edin Fl or id a b ecau se th e jud gm en t was “ ren de redun de r a s y st em whi ch do es no t pr ov id e . . . pro cedur es co m pa ti bl e wit h t he requi rem en ts of due pro ces s o f la w.” Id . § 5 5.6 05 (1 )(a) . Thir d, the di st ric t co urt fo un d t ha t the Nica rag ua n ju dg m en t co ul d n otbe reco gn iz edun de r Fl or id a la w bec au se do in g s o wo ul d b e rep ug na nt 3to Flo rid a p ub li c p ol ic y . See i d. § 55 .60 5( 2) (c) (“ (2 ) An o ut -o f-co un try fore ig n

jud gm en t n eedno t b e rec og ni zedif: (c) Th e cau se of a ct io n o r cl ai m forrel ie f on whi chth e jud gm en t i s b as edis rep ug na ntto th e p ub li c p ol ic y of t hi s s ta te .”). Fi na ll y , th e d is tri ctco urt ru le d t he Nicarag ua n ju dg m en t u ne nf or ceab le be cau se it

“ was ren de redun de r a s y st em whi ch do es no t p ro vi de im pa rti al tri bu na ls .” Id . § 5 5.6 05 (1 )(a) . The p la in ti ffs ap pe al ed . Bas edon th e fi rs t thr ee g ro un ds enum erat edinth e d is tri ctco urt’s di sp os it iv e o rd er, we ag ree t ha t the Nica rag ua n ju dg m en t i s n otdu e rec og ni ti on an d e nf or cem en t und er the Flo rid a Rec og ni ti on Act. We the refo re af firm th e di st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t; ho wev er, we d o n otad dr es s the bro ad er i ss ue of wh ethe r Nica rag uaas awho le “ do es no t p ro vi de im pa rti al tri bu na ls ” an d d ecl in e to ad op t th e d is tri ctco urt’s h ol di ng on th atqu es ti on . W e al so po in t o utth atno th in g i n t he affi rm edrul in gs is to pl ay a co ll at eral est op pe l ro le ina subs eque ntco urt’s li ti ga ti on of t he m eri ts of t he pl ai nt iff s’ per so na l i njury

cla im s. AFFIR MED.

4