Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
ATS ACTIONS
07-60821-CIV-MARRA (Carrizosa)
08-80421-CIV-MARRA (N.J. Action) (Does 1-11)
08-80465-CIV-MARRA (D.C. Action) (Does 1-144)
08-80508-CIV-MARRA (Valencia)
08-80408-CIV-MARRA (N.Y. Action) (Manjarres)
10-60573-CIV-MARRA (Montes)
10-80652-CIV-MARRA (D.C. Action) (Does 1-976)
11-80404-CIV-MARRA (D.C. Action) (Does 1-677)
17-81285-CIV-MARRA (D.C. Action (Does v. Hills)
18-80248-CIV-MARRA (Ohio Action) (John Doe 1)
___________________________________________/
THIS CAUSE previously came before the Court on the Defendants’ Joint Motion for
Summary Judgment on the Colombian Law Claims of the Bellwether Plaintiffs and the Individual
Defendants’ Joint Motion for Summary Judgment on the TVPA Claims of the Bellwether
Plaintiffs. By Order entered September 5, 2019, the Court granted both motions [DE 2551].
In accordance with Rule 54(b) and Rule 58, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is now
ESTATE on the Plaintiffs’ Colombian law claims against all Defendants, and the TVPA claims
against the Individual Defendants as to the claims of the following designated Bellwether Plaintiffs
ONLY:
2. The designated Bellwether Plaintiffs shall take nothing in this action upon the above-
referenced claims, which were resolved on their merits by entry of summary judgment
in favor of all Defendants and against the Plaintiffs, and the Defendant Chiquita and
the Individual Defendants shall go hence without day as to these claims only.
3. This is a multidistrict case with thousands of claimants. The claims resolved by this
judgment were selected as bellwether cases and are final as to these Plaintiffs. The
issues adjudicated by this judgment are likely to be present in many, if not most, of the
2
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 2552 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2019 Page 3 of 3
appellate review of this judgment will assist in guiding this Court and the parties in
how to proceed with the remaining claims. Thus, having considered the interests of
efficient judicial administration, and the equities involved in this particular case, and
finding no just reason to delay the appeal of this partial final judgment, the Court sua
sponte certifies this matter for appeal pursuant to Rule 54(b). See generally Lloyd
Noland Found. Inc. v. Tenet Health Care Corp., 483 F. 3d 773, 777 (11th Cir. 2007).
4. This case remains pending against Defendants as to all of the claims brought by
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm beach, Florida this 6th day of
September, 2019.
KENNETH A. MARRA
United States District Judge