Opinion ID: 4037404
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Count Four: Wrongful Death

Text: As in this case, both Baloco and Doe included wrongful death claims under Colombian law. In Baloco and Doe, however, the plaintiffs, all Colombian citizens, sued several American defendants and Jimenez, a Colombian citizen. The wrongful death claims were therefore premised upon supplemental jurisdiction. In Doe, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the wrongful death claims and declined the plaintiffs’ post-judgment motion to amend 2 We acknowledge that the district court may consider itself to have already decided this issue on the Defendants’ proffered basis, and we do not intend to suggest that the district court erred on the merits or is generally obligated to state the reasons for its decision. In this case, however, “appellate review would benefit from reasoned deliberation by the district court.” Palmyra Park Hosp. Inc., 604 F.3d at 1306 n.15. 15 Case: 16-10921 Date Filed: 09/27/2016 Page: 16 of 17 the complaint to create complete diversity. See Doe, 782 F.3d at 581. This Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision. Id. at 613. Baloco II likewise affirmed the res judicata holding as to the plaintiffs’ wrongful death claims. 767 F.3d at 1252. In this action, because res judicata does not apply and the Plaintiffs’ wrongful death claims are premised on mandatory diversity jurisdiction neither Baloco II nor Doe support the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of Count Four. Before both the district court and this Court, the Defendants argued not that Baloco II or Doe mandate dismissal of Count Four but that the Alabama statute of limitations bars Count Four. The Plaintiff countered that the Colombian statute of limitations applies and that the Plaintiffs are in any event entitled to equitable tolling due to the Colombian political environment and Drummond’s alleged concealment. As with Count Three, the Defendants argue a plausible basis to affirm. As with Count Three, it is unclear whether the district court dismissed on the Defendants’ articulated basis. As with Count Three, we decline to address this complicated issue in the first instance on appeal. See Palmyra Park Hosp. Inc., 604 F.3d at 1306 n.15. We therefore vacate the district court’s dismissal of Count Four and remand with instructions for the district court to either permit the Plaintiffs to proceed on 16 Case: 16-10921 Date Filed: 09/27/2016 Page: 17 of 17 this count or to reinstate the dismissal along with an articulation of the basis and reasoning for the dismissal.