Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1912 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2018 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 08-MD-1916-MARRA

IN RE: CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL

ALIEN TORT STATUTE AND
SHAREHOLDER DRIVATIVE LITIGATION
___________________________________________

This Document Relates to:

ATS Actions
___________________________________________

Response in Opposition to Boies Schiller & Flexner's

Renewed Motion to Withdraw [DE 1910]

The Court should deny the motion by several attorneys of Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP

("BSF") to withdraw from the representation of over 1000 Colombian plaintiffs, DE 1910, for the

same reasons it denied a similar motion made by other plaintiffs' counsel at Conrad & Scherer,

LLP. See Order Denying Conrad & Scherer, LLP’s Renewed Motion to Withdraw Without

Prejudice. DE 1201. In denying Conrad & Scherer's motion, the Court analyzed three factors:

delay and prejudice to the clients, compliance with notice requirements, and the reason for

withdrawal. Id. at 508. Here, the factors weigh even more heavily against permitting withdrawal.

1. Delay and Prejudice to the Clients

Although withdrawal might be accomplished without delay, the clients would be

prejudiced by losing their ability to resolve malpractice claims without retaining additional counsel

and filing a separate lawsuit.1 As alleged in Does 1-98 v. Chiquita Brands, Case No. 13-80146-

1
In the second Rule 26(f) conference, ordered by the Court, Plaintiffs counsel Jack Scarola
proposed that there would be a "malpractice phase" at this end of the MDL proceedings. Mr.
Scarola subsequently denied saying this, but at least a dozen lawyers participated in the Rule 26(f)
phone call. If any of the cases in the MDL are remanded - and only a few weeks ago Stanton Jones
of Arnold & Porter stated in a phone call that he represented all of the individual defendants in
1
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1912 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2018 Page 2 of 5

CIV-MARRA, BSF has engaged in a widespread pattern of fraud. The Court dismissed the action

for fraud after BSF conceded it had no power of representation over any of the disputed claims, on

the basis that no harm was actually done, and that the lawsuit was unripe.2 The 11th Circuit

affirmed this decision, essentially holding that client-poaching is not an actionable tort, even when

fraud and bribery of foreign government officials is involved. See per curiam opinion dated

October 4, 2017 in Case No. 17-11993. By conceding the representation of every duplicate claim

filed, BSF admitted that it had no authority to prosecute any of these claims. It is likely that the

remainder of BSF's cases also involved the bribery of Colombian officials and the use of multiple

levels of intermediaries with no contact whatsoever between BSF and its clients. In addition, the

firm that wants to substitute for BSF, Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhardt & Shipley LLP,

("SDSBS") was involved in the client poaching at the same time it had a contract with me, in which

SDSBS claimed to have a "right of first refusal" over the same duplicate cases, entitling them to

2/3 of any attorneys fees. Then for approximately six years, both firms refused to communicate

with me (and still do, unless I agree to keep silent about their payments to witnesses) or to address

the duplicate claims. Both of these law firms were aware of and approved of Mr. Collingsworth's

payments to Raul Hasbun and possibly other witnesses as well. See email from Terrence

Collingsworth to numerous attorneys, including at BSF and SDSBS, entitled "Serious Paul Wolf

problem." DE 985-4. The fraud involved in obtaining power of representation, the involvement

of SDSBS in it, and the involvement of both firms in Mr. Collingsworth's tainting of important

witnesses, call into question the propriety of granting BSF's motion.

Does 1-2146 v. Friedheim et al, 17-cv-80475-KAM, and that their intention was to request a
remand of this case to Ohio - Mr. Scarola's suggestion of a malpractice phase might not be viable.
2
One of the 98 cases was a duplicate. For the other nine, the parties either represented different
persons claiming to be heirs, or their signatures didn't match, leaving a question of fact as to who
were proper parties to the case.
2
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1912 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2018 Page 3 of 5

2. Compliance with Notice Requirements.

Although Conrad & Scherer made great efforts to contact its clients, it was unable to locate

358 of them. DE 1201 at 6-7. The court found that Conrad & Scherer did not adequately explain

the efforts made to locate any of these individuals. Id. "The supporting affidavit of Robert Perillo

does not indicate what efforts were made to ascertain or update the residential addresses for this

group, nor does it indicate what efforts, if any, were made to ascertain or update the telephone

numbers for this group. Without further details regarding the extent of efforts made to acquire

accurate contact information for this client pool, and without information as to what, if any,

intervening contact Conrad Scherer may have had with any member of the group since the

inception of its representation, the Court has insufficient information to find that Conrad Scherer

has made good faith, reasonable efforts at compliance with the notice requirements of Local Rule

11.1 (d) (3) as to this group." Id. at 7.3

Here, BSF's local counsel in Colombia state that they sent letters to over 1000 plaintiffs at

their last known address. Mr. Torrado further states that no one objected. However, six of them

contacted my staff or me directly via Facebook, to ask what was going on. I responded that I

would be unable to help them. Going to another lawyer for help is equivalent to objecting to the

withdrawal. BSF's efforts to contact these individuals, made through its Colombian agent, fall

short of those of Mr. Perillo, which the Court already determined to be insufficient.

3
The Court also found that Conrad & Scherer was obligated to notify Does 1-144 of their intention
to withdraw. They have never done so, or ever met with any of Does 1-144 face to face to the best
of my knowledge. One of their bellwether cases was apparently drawn from these 144 plaintiffs.
She refused to meet with Conrd & Scherer, since she didn't know who they were. Eric Hager of
Conrad & Scherer notified me of this approximately eight or nine months later. I just met with
this plaintiff yesterday (I am in Apartadó) who now appears to want to be a bellwether plaintiff.
However, the bellwether case selection process has not progressed in a long time and the
Defendants don't want to discuss it.
3
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1912 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2018 Page 4 of 5

3. The reason for withdrawal.

In analyzing the third factor in Conrad & Scherer's renewed motion to withdraw, the

courted noted "that Conrad Scherer does not proffer any reason for its withdrawal, nor has it

submitted evidence indicating that its clients were given an explanation of the reasons for its

proposed withdrawal, the consequences of the withdrawal or the consequences of the proposed

substitution of counsel. Nor does it suggest that any client conduct has rendered it unreasonably

difficult or impossible for it to carry out its employment effectively. Counsel’s failure to identify

a compelling reason for the proposed withdrawal also weighs against withdrawal at this time." DE

1201 at 1201.

BSF provides no reason at all for wanting to withdraw. Due to the widespread fraud, and

bribery of Colombian official Jhon Ivan Polo, the apparent reason for this is to avoid malpractice

liability and the likelihood of creating a record to support this in deposition testimony. BSF hasn't

explained why they didn't apply for passports and visas until recently, apparently believing they

could avoid participating in the bellwether trials and still be included in "the class action." None

of this suggests that the scheme they have devised with SDSBS will protect their clients interests.

Finally, BSF should demonstrate good cause in order to comply with the Florida Rules of

Professional Responsibility. According to Rule 4-1.16 (b)

(b) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if:

(1) withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the
client;

... or

(7) other good cause for withdrawal exists.

BSF has made no showing good cause, or even provided any reason. The court should be

concerned about the adverse effects of withdrawal on plaintiffs' ability to prosecute malpractice

4
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1912 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2018 Page 5 of 5

claims, particularly in light of the pattern of unethical conduct, including witness bribery, witness

tampering, fraudulently obtaining powers of representation, and bribery of Colombian government

officials.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should DENY the motion of several attorneys at Boies

Schiller & Flexner LLP to withdraw. The Court should also order BSF to show cause why it

should not be sanctioned for not bringing any bellwether plaintiffs to Florida to date.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Paul Wolf

__________________
Paul Wolf, CO Bar #42107
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Does 1-976, Does 1-2146, Does 1-144
PO Box 46213
Denver CO 80201
(202) 431-6986
paulwolf@yahoo.com
fax: n/a

May 9, 2018

Certificate of Service

I hereby state that on May 9, 2018, I filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the
Court using the Court's Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system, which will provide notices by email
to all persons entitled to receive them.

/s/ Paul Wolf

__________________
Paul Wolf