Anda di halaman 1dari 4

Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 2221 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/23/2018 Page 1 of 4


CASE NO. 08-md-01916-KAM



This Order relates to:


08-80465-CIV-MARRA (D.C. Action) (Does 1-144)

10-80652-CIV-MARRA (D.C. Action) (Does 1-976)
11-80404-CIV-MARRA (D.C. Action) (Does 1-677)
11-80405-CIV-MARRA (D.C. Action) (Does 1-254)
17-80475-CIV-MARRA (Ohio Action) (Does 1-2146)


Response to Attorney James Green's

Motion for Extension of Time [DE 2220]

Attorney James Green falsely claims that I joined in this Motion. I have had no

communications with him on the subject at all. "Attorney Paul Wolf indicated that he joins in the

relief sought by this motion."1 Mr. Simons asked me if I would "consent" to the motion, see

Exhibit 1 attached hereto, which I did. They both know the difference.

My clients aren't involved in Chiquita's Motion to Dismiss because I had no trouble finding

any of them. For my clients who failed to appear in Florida, I explained the reason and moved the

It's not the first time Mr. Green has deliberately misrepresented my position on minor issues,
assuming it would not be worth fighting over. Early in the case, Mr. Green was signing my name
to documents over my written objections. He would not provide me with notices of deposition
until ordered to by the court and tried to exclude me from the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition and the two
paramilitary depositions I wanted to participate in.
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 2221 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/23/2018 Page 2 of 4

Court for them to testify by video. One had died. When my motions for video depositons were

denied, those plaintiffs dismissed their own claims voluntarily, to avoid the sanctions of disobeying

the Court's orders. See Orders, DE 1706, 2094. For the cases at issue, counsel didn't move the

court for protective orders. They apparently just failed to appear. The sanction for that might be

contempt of court.

My theory was that by voluntarily dismissing their claims "without prejudice," an argument

may later be made that the claims can be reasserted, and the time tolled. For example, a judge in

the District of Columbia will also have discretion whether to allow testimony by video. I will

argue that the only way to bring 1,000 cases to trial is to decide common issues in a bifurcated

trial, followed by a series of short video trials. In my opinion, the only thing Chiquita got out of

any of the six depositions they took of my clients, is that they cannot always say with certainty

who committed the crime. But that's not the legal standard.

Most of my cases can be decided in Plaintiffs' favor in summary judgment. Chiquita is

liable by operation of law, by application of the negligence per se principle to Chiquita's guilty

plea in the criminal case, which arose from provisions in the U.S.A. Patriot Act.2 The only

remaining issues are proximate cause and damages. As explained by Plaintiffs' expert Manuel

Ortega in his report, the location, time, modus operandi and other factors prove liability to the

preponderance of the evidence standard, based on uncontested and objective criteria.

Whether to turn each individual case into a week-long trial depends not only on the

standards used, but also the value of each one. At this time, the parties have no benchmark to use

Using the governmental interest analysis applied in D.C., the court would compare the policies
underlying the Patriot Act to any Colombian policy that supports the application of their law. Even
in less clear circumstances, judges in D.C. prefer to apply D.C. law. To see why, one need only
try to verify the complex, badly translated, and mostly unsupported causation arguments made by
Chiquita's expert, Dr. Santos Ballesteros. DE 2203-1.
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 2221 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/23/2018 Page 3 of 4

to determine the measure of damages, and this depends entirely on choice of laws. If Colombian

damages are used, Chiquita estimates them to be about $20,000-$30,000 per person. However, if

the laws of DC apply, there are no damage caps, and three or four legal theories leading to

uncapped damages. (loss of consortium, bodily pain and suffering, pre impact fright, and punitive

damages) I intend to move the Court for partial summary judgment on negligence per se on the

dispositive motions deadline.

I am not aware of Chiquita's dealings with other plaintiffs' counsel, but with me, their

strategy has been to try to "knock out" cases to reduce the bellwether pool. Their picks for

bellwether cases were the ones that only have claims against Individual Defendants. Unless any

of this leads to establishing criteria for summary judgment, it just wastes everyone's time and


Mr. Green asks for sympathy for the holidays, but should not be pressing these claims in

defiance of the Court's orders. In addition to dismissing the claims, the court may impose contempt

of court sanctions on these plaintiffs.

Respectfully submittted,

/s/ Paul Wolf

Paul Wolf, DC Bar #480285
Attorney for Plaintiffs
PO Box 21840
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 431-6986

December 23, 2018

Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 2221 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/23/2018 Page 4 of 4

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on this 23th day of December, 2018, I filed the foregoing document
with the clerk of the court using the Court's Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system, which will send
notices to all persons entitled to receive them.

/s/ Paul Wolf

Paul Wolf