Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 2501 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2019 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 08-md-01916-KAM

IN RE: CHIQUITA BRANDS

INTERNATIONAL, INC. ALIEN
TORTS STATUTE AND
SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE
LITIGATION
__________________________________________/

This Order relates to:

ATS ACTIONS
__________________________________________/

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 (O.H. Action) (Does 1-2146)
__________________________________________/

Response in Opposition to Motion for Bellwether Trial Groupings [DE 2498]

The "non-Wolf" plaintiffs have introduced a new element of uncertainty in the schedule

with their Motion, which ends as follows:

Nonetheless, all bellwether trial Plaintiffs at issue here would waive their right to remand
and consent to trial in this Court IF Plaintiffs’ proposed groupings are followed.

Motion, DE 2498 at 6 (emphasis added). So, what will the bellwether trial Plaintiffs at issue here

do, if their demands aren't met? According to this, they won't waive their right to remand. Id.

Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius. (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other).

My question is: why does the Court still permit the "non-Wolf" plaintiffs to prevent the

Wolf Plaintiffs' cases from going to trial? In a status conference last year, I asked for my own

trial to be incorporated into the schedule. Chiquita had no objection, I believe the Court said it

had no objection, and Attorney Scarola made no objection. However, Scarola objected shortly
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 2501 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2019 Page 2 of 3

after the status conference, leaving my clients no option other than to move for remand, which

they did. Now, the "non-Wolf" plaintiffs are reserving their right to remand. They want to

separate the Uraba and Magdalena cases,1 making similar arguments to what I made, that my cases

are factually different from those of other counsel. The Court shouldn't listen to those arguments,

or give Mr. Scarola's clients preferential treatment over others.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should DENY the Motion, and Order Chiquita to

select three cases, and the "non-Wolf" plaintiffs the other three. In the alternative, the Court may

reconsider why the Global Scheduling Order prevents my clients from ever going to trial in this

Court absent Mr. Scarola's consent. If Mr. Scarola is threatening to remand his cases if his

demands aren't met, the Court should call his bluff, cancel his trial, and give the time to me.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Paul Wolf

________________________
Paul Wolf, D.C. Bar #480285
Attorney for Plaintiffs
PO Box 21840
Washington, D.C. 20009
(202) 431-6986
paulwolf@yahoo.com

July 3, 2019

1
Mr. Scarola's argument about the case of Doe 46 (a FARC-perpetrated murder) being similar to
the Magdalena cases is disingenuous. Her case is not similar to the cases from Magdalena at all.
I met her on my first trip to Uraba, and have never taken any cases in Magdalena or even been
there. Mr. Scarola doesn't want to say that the second (Feb 2020) trial is for the "B" group of
plaintiffs, who are prejudiced by being in a group dominated by Attorney Collingsworth, Conrad
& Scherer, and Jose Gregorio Mangones Lugo (their paramilitary witness, whom we have objected
to previously). This is all moot though, since the Court granted Doe 46's Motion to Sever and
explained the method for her replacement.
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 2501 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2019 Page 3 of 3

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on this 3rd day of July, 2019, I filed the foregoing document with the
Clerk of the Court using the Court's Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system, which will send
electronic notices to all persons entitled to receive them.

/s/ Paul Wolf

______________
Paul Wolf