Pineapple Litigation Sours into 'Day of Reckoning,' as Del Monte Alleges Contempt
The fight between Monaco-based pineapple grower Del Monte International GmbH and Costa-Rican plantation Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical Inprotsa appears destined to continue.
October 15, 2019 at 02:00 PM
4 minute read
The relationship between two pineapple growers just got pricklier as Monaco-based Del Monte International GmbH has accused its Costa Rican partner-turned-rival, Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical Inprotsa, of willfully violating a 2017 final judgment that blocked the Latin American company from selling pineapples derived from Del Monte seeds.
The seeds, called MD-2, are hybrids designed to spawn pineapples that are exceptionally sweet and juicy.
Del Monte labeled its renewed motion for contempt a "day of reckoning" for pineapple plantation Inprotsa, which it claimed has "openly—indeed brazenly—violated the injunction against sales of MD-pineapples since the day the court entered its final judgment."
The final judgment at issue is a $26 million arbitration award in Del Monte's favor, plus $650,000 in costs and $2.5 million in attorney fees. Inprotsa fought the award, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld it in April. The U.S. Supreme Court then denied certiorari review.
The companies have been at loggerheads since 2013, when a dispute arose from a 13-year pineapple sales agreement they'd signed in 2001. The agreement outlined that Del Monte would sell MD-2 seeds to Inprotsa, which would grow and sell them back—until the contract expired, when Inprotsa would return or destroy the remainder, according to court pleadings.
Inprotsa sold more than $200 million worth of pineapples during that time, according to court documents. But Del Monte claimed Inprotsa breached the arrangement by selling pineapples to competitors, instead of returning or destroying the leftover seeds.
Del Monte's motion seeks a $16.3 million compensatory fine to make up for Inprotsa's alleged ill-gotten revenue, and attorney fees and costs.
The pleading is the second of its kind, filed more than a year after an initial motion for contempt, which Del Monte claims Inprotsa never properly rebutted.
Inprotsa had partnered with the Dole Food Co. before its alliance with Del Monte and has alleged it only made the move because it was misled into believing Del Monte owned exclusive rights to MD-2 seeds.
Del Monte helped create the seeds with the Pineapple Research Institute of Hawaii but doesn't own exclusive rights to them.
Inprotsa has claimed it fully complied with the arbitration award, which asked that it destroy 93% of its vegetative material. But it claimed that under Costa Rican regulations and environmental law, it couldn't immediately destroy 460 hectares of agriculture. Instead, Inprotsa claimed it did so in stages, replacing each destroyed field with new, non-Del Monte MD-2 pineapple seeds.
Inprotsa has decided to phase out of the pineapple business, according to its response to Del Monte's motion for contempt.
"This could not happen immediately, however, given that it would take time to destroy the existing vegetative material in compliance with Costa Rican law, and that Inprotsa did not want to terminate its 600 employees," the company claimed.
Del Monte's counsel, Brian Stack, Robert Harris, Denise Crockett and Lazaro Fernandez Jr. of Stack Fernandez & Harris in Miami, declined to comment. Inprotsa's lawyers, Richard C. Lorenzo and Alvin F. Lindsay III of Hogan Lovells in Miami, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno is presiding over the case in the Southern District of Florida.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBenworth Accused of Predatory Tactics in Foreclosure Dispute as Elderly Defendant's Health Deteriorates
4 minute read'Get Rid of the Men': Employer Accused of Discrimination
Trending Stories
- 1How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
- 2Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 3Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 4Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 5X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250