An appeals court ruled a South Florida federal judge was misled by a red herring in an international case concerning blueberry prices.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit Monday found the district court erroneously dismissed the case in part because there's no agreement between the U.S. and the Netherlands, where the dispute originated, for enforcing court-ordered judgments.

The appellate panel vacated U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom's dismissal of Fresh Results v. ASF Holland B.V. in the Southern District of Florida.

In the underlying case, the plaintiff, Delaware produce company Fresh Results, sued Netherlands-based distribution company ASF Holland over “a blueberry deal that soured,” according to the appellate court's order.

“[Fresh Results] alleged that ASF Holland fraudulently promised a high reference price but then deflated the actual price it paid by sending false reports,” the opinion said. “According to Fresh Results, ASF Holland manipulated the price by understating the amount paid by its European customers and by falsely inflating its expenses in the reports.”

Circuit Judge William Pryor authored Monday's order, which remanded the case for further proceedings. The order found the lower court had abused its discretion by deciding jurisdiction, without properly weighing all the factors before granting ASF Holland's motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens.

Bloom had found Dutch law would likely apply to the disputes in the case, and that Dutch courts were therefore best suited to apply that law.

But Fresh Results felt otherwise. It appealed, and the 11th Circuit panel agreed.

“After concluding that the interests of the litigants—the so-called 'private factors'—were not in equipoise, the district court ruled that it need not consider all relevant 'public factors' for each forum and dismissed the complaint so that the litigation could proceed in the Netherlands,” Pryor wrote.

The opinion found that in weighing a case's proper venue, courts must consider the advantages and disadvantages of the distinct forums by evaluating their respective private and public factors.

Read the 11th Circuit's order: 

“The private factors 'pertain to the interests of the participants in the litigation,' ” Pryor wrote, adding “the relative ease of access to sources of proof,” and the “availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses,” qualify as private factors. The appellate court also cited prior rulings that referred to public factors as the consideration of “the 'local interest in having localized controversies decided at home,' ” as well as “the avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflicts of laws.”

The appellate panel held that the district court's finding inappropriately used an equipoise standard to determine the public factors did not require the examination afforded to the private factors, in turn justifying the case's dismissal. Monday's ruling offered a rebuttal to precedent regarding the use of the standard when determining a lawsuit's correct venue.

“ Our rejection of the equipoise standard means that a district court may not bypass the public factors, even when the private factors are not at or near equipoise,” the order said. “We vacate the dismissal of the complaint and remand for the district court to consider all relevant private and public factors.”

The appellate ruling found the lower court had erred in its analysis of the private factors and must correct them on remand. The judge contended Bloom's order disregarded the testimony of South American blueberry growers who were willing to testify in the U.S., and not in the Netherlands, because “the growers are not parties to this lawsuit.” It found that while the district court may find “the importance of the growers' testimony is insubstantial compared to the location of other sources of proof accessible in the Netherlands,” it “cannot categorically disregard their testimony solely because they are non-parties.”

Monday's order found the district court's decision ”was distracted by a red herring.”

“It reasoned that the enforceability of a possible judgment favored dismissal because no treaty exists between the United States and the Netherlands that governs the reciprocal enforcement of judgments,” Pryor wrote. “Relying solely on the absence of a treaty—when no such treaty exists for the United States—was an erroneous basis to weigh this factor in favor of dismissal.”

The court declined to rule on whether the U.S. or the Netherlands was the more appropriate venue for the lawsuit.

DLA Piper lawyers Christopher Oprison and Ardith Bronson represented ASF Holland, alongside Boca Raton litigator Marc Nurik. Requests for comment from the attorneys were not returned by press time.

An attorney with Fresh Results' legal team, West Palm Beach lawyer Scott Atherton, said the group was “grateful” the court clarified the controlling standards for motions on proper forum disputes in the 11th Circuit.

Atherton added, “We look forward to proceeding with our case pursuant to those standards in the trial court.”

Related stories: