Chaverri v. Dole Food Co.
896 F. Supp. 2d 556
E.D. La.2012Background
- Seven consolidated actions (approx. 261 plaintiffs) in ED La alleging injuries from DBCP exposure on banana plantations (1960–1992).
- Defendants include Dole, Dow, Occidental, Amvac, Shell, Chiquita, and Del Monte; plaintiffs assert manufacturing/distribution/use of DBCP caused various injuries.
- Plaintiffs contend many did not know DBCP could cause sterility until 1993, with affidavits from many linking discovery to 1993–2012.
- Prior related class actions in Texas (Carcamo/Delgado, 1993–2009) and other states influenced prescription interruption arguments.
- Court considers whether Louisiana prescription (1-year delictual) was interrupted/suspended by pre-1997 class action tolling and related return-jurisdiction clauses.
- Court grants summary judgment for defendants on prescription grounds, dismissing with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Carcamo/Delgado interrupt prescription? | Carcamo/Delgado interrupted prescription for all class members. | Interruption ended when class was denied certification and/or case dismissed; no cross-jurisdictional tolling; no continued interruption via later actions. | Carcamo/Delgado did not sustain ongoing interruption; claims prescribed. |
| Does denial of class certification mooted interruption and restarted prescription? | Denial as moot and dismissal did not extinguish interruption; returns rights ongoing. | Denial as moot restarted prescription, and final f.n.c. dismissal ended pendency; interruption ended. | Denial of class certification restarting prescription is recognized; in this case, interruption ultimately did not save claims; prescription restarted and then ran anew. |
| Can cross-jurisdictional/class-action tolling suspend prescription in this mass-tort context? | Louisiana recognizes cross-jurisdictional interruption for mass actions; tolling extended to this case. | No long‑running cross-jurisdictional tolling; stacking piggybacking of classes rejected; Patrickson/return-clause limitations apply. | Interruption/suspension doctrine does not save these claims; prescription prescribed. |
Key Cases Cited
- American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) (class action tolling promotes efficiency and preserves rights during pendency)
- Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (1983) (tolling lasts until class certification denial)
- Armstrong v. Martin Marietta Corp., 138 F.3d 1374 (11th Cir. 1998) (tolling ends at denial of class certification; avoid indefinite stacking)
- Calderon v. Presidio Valley Farmers Ass'n, 863 F.2d 384 (5th Cir. 1989) (pre-1997 rule on class-action interruption)
- Eastin v. Entergy Corp., 971 So.2d 374 (La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007) (pre-1997 law: interruption by class action; final denial ends tolling)
- Bordelon v. Alexandria, 822 So.2d 223 (La. Ct. App. 3 Cir. 2002) (recognizes interruption mechanics for pre-1997 law)
- Smith v. Cutter Biological, 770 So.2d 408 (La. Ct. App. 4 Cir. 2000) (no piggyback tolling; pre-1997 rule on interruption)
- Delgado v. Shell Oil Co., 890 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (S.D. Tex. 2004) (f.n.c. dismissal and return jurisdiction clause analyzed in tolling context)