Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1715 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2017 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 08-01916-MD-MARRA/JOHNSON

IN RE: CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

ALIEN TORT STATUTE AND SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION

______________________________________/

This Document Relates To: ATS ACTIONS

Does 1-976 (10-cv-80652)

Does 1-677 (11-cv-80404)
Does 1-2146 (17-cv-80475)
______________________________________/

Plaintiffs Response to Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP's Notice of Substitution of Counsel

The Court should deny Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP's ("BSF") motion to withdraw, styled

as a Notice of Substitution of Counsel. D.E. 1712. The issue is the same as when Conrad &

Scherer, LLP twice tried to withdraw from this case, leaving their clients in the hands of their

former partner, Terry Collingsworth. See Motion to Substitute Counsel and Notice of Appearance

by International Rights Advocates, D.E. 965. The Court denied the motion twice, even after

Conrad & Scherer said they had provided individual notice to over 1,500 plaintiffs. See D.E. 989,

1011, 1047, 1048, 1055, 1108. 1112, 1180, 1201. The Court first found "that notice has not yet

been provided to all of counsels' clients." D.E. 989 at 1. The Court relied on Local Rule 11.1(d)(3),

which states that: "No attorney shall withdraw the attorney's appearance in any action or

proceeding except by leave of Court after notice served on the attorney's client and opposing

counsel." Id.

On December 2, 2016, the Court denied Conrad & Scherer's second motion to withdraw.

D.E. 1201. The Court found that it would be "impossible to assess, before discovery on the witness

1
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1715 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2017 Page 2 of 5

payment issue is complete, whether Mr. Collingsworth may become a potential witness in the case,

or other potential grounds for disqualification may evolve, developments which would plainly

militate against the proposed substitution." D.E. 1201 at 6. In addition, although most of Conrad

& Scherer's clients had allegedly received notice, 358 of them had not. "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. This sets an even

higher bar for BSF to withdraw.

Here, there is no indication that either Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhardt & Schipley, LLP

("SDSBS"), or Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, have notified any of these clients of BSF's intention

to withdraw. Nor have they provided a reason for withdrawing. If the purpose were simply to

facilitate court filings, Mr. Scarola or someone else at his firm could easily enter an appearance

for these plaintiffs, without BSF having to withdraw. It is BSF's withdrawal from the

representation that is of concern.

There is an ongoing RICO conspiracy involving witness bribery, witness tampering,

money laundering, and several questionable witnesses in Colombia that Mr. Scarola still wants to

depose. D.E. 1687. Years ago, I complained to New York and Florida Bar Counsel about several

attorneys at SDSBS and BSF, expressing particular concern over Jose Gregorio Mangones Lugo.

Mr. Scarola's list has two people associated with him, as well as Adolfo Enrique Guevara Cantillo,

who complained in the Dole case about Ivan Otero's attempts to bribe him, resulting in its

dismissal. Mr. Scarola wants to blame me for scaring these witnesses, but I believe it is the

2
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1715 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2017 Page 3 of 5

criminal investigation by Colombian authorities that has scared them. After the District Court for

the Northern District of Alabama sent witness payment evidence to the Colombian authorities,

most of Collingsworth's witnesses stopped talking.

In addition, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Colombians who think they are suing

Chiquita, but whose claims were never filed in court, due to the cynical "class action tolling"

strategy. I believe the real reason for the joint representation, and treating the unfiled claims as

"community property," is to make it difficult for any of the firms involved to withdraw from the

conspiracy. The application of RICO in the Drummond case is apt.

For example, on November 28, 2011, Jack Scarola wrote an email to about 100 people on

the "chiquita-ats-all" mailing list, stating that his firm had acquired "probably in excess of 3,000"

new cases from Colombian lawyers, which were to be "registered" as class members, to be jointly

represented by all plaintiffs counsel. 1 This is one of the agreements I would never sign, and another

reason I am working on my own. Two days later, on November, 30, 2017, Mr. Scarola sent me an

email stating that his firm would no longer work with me if I did not agree to jointly represent

clients in this class action, even though this was never contemplated in my contract with SDSBS.

They have a series of agreements that tie the hands of the individual lawyers and firms in the

conspiracy, who all share in the malpractice liability for these unfiled claims. They also have a

1
Counsel is aware that this comes close to revealing a privileged communication. However, on
April 11, 2017, the Court ordered the parties to disclose the total number of claims they intend to
file. See Global Order Setting Trial Dates & Discovery Deadlines, D.E. 1361, at 2. ("b. Plaintiffs
Disclosure to include: The total number of Plaintiffs whose cases counsel intend to prosecute and
which Plaintiffs counsel represents which Plaintiff. This disclosure shall include the identity of
each Plaintiff and shall be subject to the terms of an appropriate Protective Order limiting its
dissemination.") What should happen to the hundreds or thousands of people whose claims were
never filed? At a minimum, these individuals have the right to know that their claims were not
filed.
3
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1715 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2017 Page 4 of 5

responsibility to tell their malpractice providers of these accusations, and of the bar complaints

filed against them.

The Notice of Substitution of Counsel also shows an improper relationship between BSF

and SDSBS, which I alleged in a lawsuit that has now been dismissed. See Case No. 13-80146-

CIV-MARRA. At the same time Mr. Scarola was telling me he was my co-counsel, he was

working with BSF to steal my clients. This is just what Terry Collingsworth did in Magdalena.

At the end of the case, we hope the plaintiffs are all treated equally, regardless of which attorney

represents them.

In practical terms, the Court may simply ignore the Notice, since it seeks no relief.

However, as Mr. Scarola himself mentioned at the first Rule 26(f) conference, when all is said and

done, there is likely to be a malpractice phase of this case. Therefore, it may be better to deal with

the problem head on, treat the notice as a motion, and deny it, without prejudice to refiling the

motion in the proper form.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Paul Wolf

_______________________
Paul Wolf, CO Bar #41207
Attorney for Plaintiffs
P.O. Box 46213
Denver, CO 80201
(202) 431-6986
paulwolf@yahoo.com
fax: n/a

December 2, 1017

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on this 2nd of December, 2017, I filed the foregoing document using
the Court's CM/ECF electronic case-filing system, which will send notices by email to all parties
entitled to receive them.

4
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1715 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2017 Page 5 of 5

/s/ Paul Wolf

______________
Paul Wolf