Federal District Judge in Florida Refuses to Enforce Multi-Million Dollar Verdict Against Fruit Company
Nicaraguan workers sued Dole and Dow Chemical Company after they claimed that working in the fruit fields left them sterile. The 150 agricultural workers in the Central American nation said said that they were irreparably harmed by exposure to a potent pesticide, says Fort Lauderdale personal injury lawyer Andrew Alitowski. They worked for Dole and allege that the manufacturer of the pesticide was Dow.
According to Fort Lauderdale accident attorney Alitowski, the workers won their verdict in a Nicaraguan court. Altogether, they were awarded $97 million, or about $650,000 per worker if each were compensated equally. However, Broward injury lawyer Alitowski notes that there might be variation among the amount each worker was awarded; for example, a 45-year-old mother of four might receive less money than her 20-year-old counterpart, who had not yet had the chance to get married or build a family.
In any case, the Dole employees attempted to enforce the verdict in a federal district court in Florida. U.S. District Judge Paul Huck refused to recognize the decision of the Nicaraguan court largely on the basis that it was inherently unfair to the American businesses and that the Nicaraguan government had specifically sought out to boost its citizens’ claims at the expenses of fairness and due process of the law. He wrote that the Nicaraguan court “applied a law that unfairly discriminated against a handful of foreign defendants with extraordinary procedures and presumptions found nowhere else in Nicaraguan law.” In general, although U.S. states are supposed to give full faith and credit to the public acts of other states (such as verdicts for civil damages and family law matters, like divorce decrees and child support or alimony obligations), those are far easier to enforce than a verdict from a foreign court.
There were other allegations of fraud, as well. An attorney in southern California is the subject of an investigation amid claims that he engaged in unethical practices, such as coaching witnesses to make misleading or false statements. The matter remains pending before the California Bar at this time, however, and there is not a decision at this time on whether the allegations are accurate.
Article contributed by Mallory Shipman Lynn, Esq.
