Rev.

4/18 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
CIVIL APPEAL STATEMENT

Please TYPE. Attach additional pages if necessary. 11th Circuit Docket Number: ________________________________
19-13926

Caption: District and Division: _____________________________________

Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach Div.

In re Chiquita Brands International, Inc. Name of Judge: _____________________________________

Kenneth A Marra

Nature of Suit: _____________________________________

Diversity / Personal Injury

Date Complaint Filed: _____________________________________

June 7, 2007 (1st Complaint in MDL)

District Court Docket Number: ______________________________

08-1916-MD

Date Notice of Appeal Filed: ______________________________

October 3, 2019

 Cross Appeal  Class Action

Has this matter previously been before this court?
 Yes
✔  No
If Yes, provide
(a) Caption: __________________________________________
Carrizosa v Chiquita Brands

(b) Citation: __________________________________________

(c) Docket Number: ____________________________________
12-14898, 17-11993, 19-11494

Attorney Name Mailing Address Telephone, Fax, Email

For Appellant:
✔ Plaintiff

Paul Wolf PO Box 21840 (202) 431-6986
 Defendant Washington, DC 20009 Fax n/a
 Other (Specify) (202) 431-6986

For Appellee:
 Plaintiff
Michael Cioffi Blank Rome LLP (513) 362-8701
✔ Defendant
 1700 PNC Center
 Other (Specify) 201 East Fifth St.
Cincinnati, OH 45202

Please CIRCLE/CHECK/COMPLETE the items below and on page 2 that apply.

Jurisdiction Nature of Judgment Type of Order Relief

 Federal Question  Final Judgment,  Dismissal/Jurisdiction Amount Sought by Plaintiff:

28 USC 1291 $_______________________
10,000,000.


✔ Diversity  Default Judgment
 Interlocutory Order, Amount Sought by Defendant:
 US Plaintiff 28 USC 1292(a)(1) 
✔ Summary Judgment $_______________________

 US Defendant 
✔ Interlocutory Order Certified,  Judgment/Bench Trial Awarded:
28 USC 1292(b) $_______________________
0

 Judgment/Jury Verdict to ______________________

 Interlocutory Order,
Qualified Immunity  Judgment/Directed Verdict/NOV Injunctions:
 TRO
 Final Agency Action (Review)  Injunction  Preliminary  Granted
 Permanent  Denied
 54(b)  Other _____________________
Page 2 11th Circuit Docket Number: ____________________________
19-13926

Based on your present knowledge:

(1) Does this appeal involve a question of First Impression?  Yes

✔  No
What is the issue you claim is one of First Impression? ____________________________________________________________
Daubert Std for LEO, Anderson v Liberty Lobby Std for cases filed in D.C. Circuit.

(2) Will the determination of this appeal turn on the interpretation or application of a particular case or statute? ✔ Yes
  No

If Yes, provide
(a) Case Name/Statute ___________________________________________________________________________________
Anderson v Liberty Lobby
(b) Citation _____________________________________________________________________________________________
477 US 242 (1986)
(c) Docket Number if unreported ___________________________________________________________________________

(3) Is there any case now pending or about to be brought before this court or any other court or administrative agency that
(a) Arises from substantially the same case or controversy as this appeal? ✔ Yes  No
(b) Involves an issue that is substantially the same, similar, or related to an issue in this appeal?  Yes ✔ No


If Yes, provide
(a) Case Name _________________________________________________________________________________________
Carrizosa v Chiquita Brands Int. Inc
(b) Citation ____________________________________________________________________________________________
(c) Docket Number if unreported __________________________________________________________________________
19-11494
(d) Court or Agency _____________________________________________________________________________________
11th Circuit

(4) Will this appeal involve a conflict of law

(a) Within the Eleventh Circuit?  Yes  No
(b) Among circuits? ✔ Yes
  No

If Yes, explain briefly:

All these cases were filed in D.C. District Court, and have moved twice for
remand. D.C. Circuit law differs substantially in the application of Daubert to
law enforcement experts, & should determine its own summary judgment std.
(5) Issues proposed to be raised on appeal, including jurisdictional challenges:

1. Whether the District Court erred by finding the summary judgment record
insufficient to support a jury verdict in Plaintiffs' favor.
2. Whether the District Court erred by requiring Plaintiffs to know the precise
identity of the killers, when all they had to show was that the person who
caused Plaintiffs injuries was supported by the Defendant.
3. Whether the District Court erred in applying the Daubert standard to a law
enforcement expert.

I CERTIFY THAT I SERVED THIS CIVIL APPEAL STATEMENT ON THE CLERK OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT AND

SERVED A COPY ON EACH PARTY OR THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD, THIS ____________

18th DAY OF ___________________________,
October ____________.
2019

_______________________________________________________
/s/ Paul Wolf _______________________________________________________
/s/ Paul Wolf
NAME OF COUNSEL (Print) SIGNATURE OF COUNSEL