Angel Enrique Villeda Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.
741 F.3d 1349
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Guatemalan labor organizers sued Fresh Del Monte and affiliates for kidnapping, torture, and related actions on a 1999 Guatemalan banana plantation.
- District court dismissed for forum non conveniens; later Guatemalan forum blocked by Decree 34-97, forcing Plaintiffs to seek reinstatement in federal court.
- Plaintiffs filed in Guatemala; court declined to hear due to blocking statute; Florida court had dismissed previously and affirmed on appeal.
- Plaintiffs later sought Rule 60(b)(6) reinstatement in federal court after ex parte Guatemala filing and denial of jurisdiction there.
- Court evaluated whether Rule 60(b)(6) relief was appropriate given plaintiffs’ lack of challenge to Guatemalan availability and alleged procedural steps, and whether Rule 60(d)(1) relief or other avenues applied.
- Court affirmed the district court’s denial of reinstatement and declined to grant Rule 60(b) or Rule 60(d)(1) relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b)(6) relief was proper. | Plaintiffs contend availability in Guatemala showed extraordinary circumstances. | Defendants argue no extraordinary circumstances; plaintiffs failed to pursue Guatemalan remedies. | No; district court did not abuse discretion. |
| Whether Rule 60(d)(1) relief is available. | Plaintiffs seek independent action to relieve a grave miscarriage of justice. | No grave miscarriage; inadequate showings. | No; relief denied. |
| Whether the district court properly denied reinstatement. | Availability in Guatemala was not properly considered; Decree 34-97 unaddressed. | Availability not shown; plaintiffs delayed and failed to contest availability earlier. | Yes; affirmed district court’s denial. |
| Whether collateral estoppel or other doctrines bar reinstatement. | Florida state court ruling impacts federal reinstatement. | No collateral estoppel impact on availability. | Affirmed no barrier to denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. 1981) (balance of rules under Rule 60(b) extraordinary relief; caselaw guiding discretion)
- Galbert v. W. Caribbean Airways, 715 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2013) (Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances; failure to argue unavailability forecloses relief)
- Bankers Mortg. Co. v. United States, 423 F.2d 73 (5th Cir. 1970) (avenue for relief; fairness in balancing final judgments)
- Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 (1950) (limits on relief under Rule 60(b) based on justice and finality)
- Toole v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 235 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2000) (standard for evaluating Rule 60(b) motions; extraordinary circumstances must be compelling)
- Cavaliere v. Allstate Ins. Co., 996 F.2d 1111 (11th Cir. 1993) (helps define extraordinary relief standard under Rule 60(b)(6))
- Compania Naviera Joanna S.A. v. Koninklijke Boskalis Westminster NV, 569 F.3d 189 (4th Cir. 2009) (unavailability caused by own purposeful conduct doctrine in FNC context)
- MBI Grp., Inc. v. Credit Foncier du Cameroun, 616 F.3d 568 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (no license to defeat foreign forum availability; acts to undermine FNC not remedied later)
- In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 420 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2005) (policy on forum non conveniens and related relief)