Drummond's Response Brief - International Rights Advocates

70 Pages·2013·0.19 MB·English

Case: 12-15268 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 1 of 70
No. 12-15268-BB

IN THE
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
FREDDY LOCARNO BALOCO, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
DRUMMOND COMPANY, INC., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
On Appeal from the
United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama

BRIEF FOR APPELLEES

William A. Davis III William H. Jeffress, Jr.
Ben Presley Sara E. Kropf
H. Thomas Wells III Rachel B. Cochran
STARNES DAVIS FLORIE LLP Bryan H. Parr
100 Brookwood Place, Floor 7 BAKER BOTTS LLP
Birmingham, AL 35259 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
[phone] Washington, D.C. 20004
[phone]
Counsel for Appellees
Case: 12-15268 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 2 of 70
Locarno Baloco v. Drummond Co., Inc., No. 12-15268-BB
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 26.1-1, Appellees certify that, to the best
of counsel’s knowledge, the following persons have an interest in the outcome of
this case, in addition to those identified in the briefs for appellants:
Itochu Coal Americas Inc.
Itochu Corporation (ITOCY)
Presley, Benjamin T. (Appellees’ counsel)

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, Appellees certify that
Drummond Company, Inc. is the parent company of Appellee Drummond Ltd.;
that Appellee Drummond Company, Inc. has no parent company; and that Itochu
Corporation (ITOCY) owns 20% of the Drummond entities’ Colombian operations
through a new subsidiary, Itochu Coal Americas Inc., which is based in
Birmingham, Alabama.
C-1 of 1
Case: 12-15268 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 3 of 70
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Appellees agree that oral argument is appropriate in this case. The
procedural history is complex and the facts are unusual. The Court would benefit
by hearing orally from counsel.
i
Case: 12-15268 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 4 of 70
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................................................................1

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ON APPEAL..................................................................1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE....................................................................................2

STANDARDS OF REVIEW.....................................................................................10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.................................................................................11

ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................13

I. The Claims Of All Plaintiffs Are Barred By Non-Party Preclusion .............13

A. Whether Plaintiffs Have A “Separate and Distinct” Measure Of
Damages Is Not Controlling..................................................................15

B. The District Court Relied on a Substantive Legal Relationship, Not On
A “Close Family Relationship”.............................................................17

C. All of the Plaintiffs Are In a Substantive Legal Relationship with the
Mothers in Drummond I........................................................................18

D. The Plaintiffs Were Adequately Represented By the Mothers in
Drummond I...........................................................................................27

1. The Mothers Acted as Fiduciaries For All of the Plaintiffs..........27

2. Taylor’s Two-Part Adequate Representation Test Is Satisfied.....28

3. The Adequate Representation Analysis Applies Equally to the
“New” Plaintiffs............................................................................37

II. The Eight Original Plaintiffs Are Also Barred By Party Preclusion.............39

A. The Children Were Parties in Drummond I...........................................40

ii
Case: 12-15268 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 5 of 70
B. The Children Were Adequately Represented By Their Mothers in
Drummond I...........................................................................................41

1. Because There Was No Conflict of Interest Between The Children
and Their Mothers, the District Court Was Not Obligated To
Consider Another Representative..................................................42

C. No Special Language Was Required in Drummond I for the Mothers to
Bring an Action on Behalf of the Children...........................................46

III. The District Court Did Not Err In Considering Previous Deposition
Testimony By The Mothers Of The Eight Original Plaintiffs.......................48

IV. The District Court Properly Struck Contradictory New Declarations By The
Eight Original Plaintiffs And Their Mothers.................................................52

V. Preservation of Certain Arguments................................................................54

CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................56

iii
Case: 12-15268 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 6 of 70
TABLE OF CITATIONS
Page(s)
CASES
Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc.,
416 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2005)...............................................................................................47
Allen v. School Board for Santa Rosa County,
787 F. Supp. 2d 1293 (N.D. Fla. 2011)....................................................................................23
Amos v. PPG Industries, Inc.,
699 F.3d 448 (6th Cir. 2012)...................................................................................................29
*Baloco v. Drummond Co., Inc.,
640 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2011).......................................................................................passim
Bartels Trust ex rel Cornell University v. United States,
88 Fed. Cl. 105 (Fed. Cl. 2009)...............................................................................................31
Beiswenger Enterprises Corp. v. Carletta,
46 F. Supp. 2d 1297 (M.D. Fla. 1999).....................................................................................51
Best Canvas Prods. & Supplies, Inc. v. Ploof Truck Lines, Inc.,
713 F.2d 618 (11th Cir. 1983).................................................................................................35
Bouchat v. Bon-Ton Department Stores, Inc.,
506 F.3d 315 (4th Cir. 2007)...................................................................................................33
Brassfield v. Jack McLendon Furniture, Inc.,
953 F. Supp. 1424 (M.D. Ala. 1996).......................................................................................53
Burke v. Smith,
252 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2001).........................................................................................45, 46
Carter v. City of Emporia,
815 F.2d 617 (10th Cir. 1987).................................................................................................22
Carter v. DecisionOne Corp.,
122 F.3d 997 (11th Cir. 1997)...........................................................................................48, 50
Chicago, R.I. & P. RY. Co. v. Schendel,
270 U.S. 611, 46 S.Ct. 420 (1926).....................................................................................18, 20
Communities for Equity v. Michigan High School Athletic Association,
26 F. Supp. 2d 1001 (W.D. Mich. 1998).................................................................................43
iv
Case: 12-15268 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 7 of 70
Cooper v. Brunswick County Sheriff’s Department,
No. 7:10-CV-00014-D, 2011 WL 738610 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 7, 2011).......................................43
Corcoran v. Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co.,
94 U.S. 741 (1876)...................................................................................................................19
Cramco, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board,
399 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1968).......................................................................................................51
Croce v. Bromley Corp.,
623 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir. 1980).....................................................................................44, 45, 46
Devine v. Indian River County School Board,
121 F.3d 576 (11th Cir. 1997).................................................................................................42
EEOC v. Pemco AeroPlex, Inc.,
383 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2004)...............................................................................................20
Ex parte Callan Assocs., Inc.,
87 So. 3d 1161 (Ala. 2011)................................................................................................19, 20
Freeman v. Lester Coggins Trucking, Inc.,
771 F.2d 860 (5th Cir. 1985)...................................................................................................26
Gonzalez v. Reno,
86 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (S.D. Fla. 2000) .....................................................................................45
Gonzalez-Jimenez de Ruiz v. United States,
231 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (M.D. Fla. 2002).............................................................................42, 47
Griswold v. County of Hillsborough,
598 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2010).........................................................................................10, 15
Hall v. Time Insurance Co.,
671 F. Supp. 768 (M.D. Ga. 1987)..........................................................................................47
Hansberry v. Lee,
311 U.S. 32, 61 S.Ct. 115 (1940).............................................................................................29
Headwaters, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service,
399 F. 3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2005)................................................................................................21
Hill v. FTC,
124 F.2d 104 (5th Cir. 1941)...................................................................................................36
Hill v. Watts,
No. 85-1517, 1986 WL 16119 (4th Cir. 1986)..................................................................22, 27
v
Case: 12-15268 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 8 of 70
I.A. Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson Nat’l Bank,
793 F.2d 1541 (11th Cir. 1986)...............................................................................................40
In re Hanson’s Estate,
210 F. Supp. 377 (D.D.C. 1963) .............................................................................................21
Israel v. Sonic-Montgomery FLM, Inc.,
231 F. Supp. 2d 1156 (M.D. Ala. 2002)..................................................................................54
*Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,
No. 10-1491 (argued Oct. 1, 2012)..........................................................................................55
Lane v. Celotex,
782 F.2d 1526 (11th Cir. 1986)...............................................................................................53
Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc.,
257 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2001)...............................................................................................11
Macuba v. Deboer,
193 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 1999)...............................................................................................51
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd.,. v. Epstein,
516 U.S. 367 (1996).................................................................................................................39
McClain v. Apodaca,
793 F.2d 1031 (9th Cir. 1986).................................................................................................33
McKinnon v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama,
935 F.2d 1187 (11th Cir. 1991)...............................................................................................24
Meador v. Oryx Energy Co.,
87 F. Supp. 2d 658 (E.D. Tex. 2000).......................................................................................21
Meredith v. Dusin,
No. 03-2532-CM, 2003 WL 22844157 (D. Kan. Nov. 12, 2003)...........................................43
*Mohamed v. Palestinian Authority,
132 S.Ct. 1702 (2012)..............................................................................................................55
Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.,
551 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2008)...............................................................................................10
NAACP v. Hunt,
891 F.2d 1555 (11th Cir. 1990).........................................................................................32, 33
Nilsen v. City of Moss Point,
701 F.2d 556 (5th Cir. 1983)...................................................................................................33
vi
Case: 12-15268 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 9 of 70
Norfolk Southern Corp. v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc.,
371 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2004)...............................................................................................10
Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore,
439 U.S. 322 (U.S. 1979).........................................................................................................14
Parmater v. Amcord,
699 So. 2d 1238 (Ala. 1997)....................................................................................................24
Pelt v. Utah,
539 F.3d 1271 (10th Cir. 2008).........................................................................................28, 29
Perry v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.,
734 F.2d 1441 (11th Cir. 1984)...............................................................................................11
Richards v. Jefferson County, Alabama,
517 U.S. 793, 116 S.Ct. 1761 (1996).......................................................................................23
*Roberts v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Co.,
256 F.2d 35 (5th Cir. 1958)...................................................................................43, 44, 45, 46
Rodgers v. McElroy,
No. 2110364, 2012 WL 3242120 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012)........................................................24
Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc.,
552 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2008)...........................................................................................2, 54
Ross ex. rel. Ross v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High School Dist. 211,
486 F.3d 279 (7th Cir. 2007).............................................................................................22, 27
Ruttenberg v. Friedman,
97 So. 3d 114 (Ala. 2012)........................................................................................................24
Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet,
414 U.S. 573, 94 S.Ct. 806 (1974)...........................................................................................23
Spokane & I.E.R. Co. v. Whitley,
237 U.S. 487, 35 S.Ct. 655 (1915)...........................................................................................19
*Taylor v. Sturgell,
553 U.S. 880, 128 S.Ct. 2161 (2008)...............................................................................passim

Torres v. County of Oakland,
758 F.2d 147 (6th Cir. 1985)...................................................................................................49
United States Fidelity & Guarantee Co. v. Birmingham Oxygen Services, Inc.,
290 Ala. 149, 274 So. 2d 615 (1973).......................................................................................19
vii
Case: 12-15268 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 10 of 70
Van T Junkins & Assocs., Inc. v. U.S. Indus., Inc.,
736 F.2d 656 (11th Cir. 1984).................................................................................................53
Vasquez v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.,
325 F.3d 665 (5th Cir. 2003)...................................................................................................21
Wallace v. Ener,
521 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1975)...................................................................................................11
Yankton Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services,
533 F.3d 634 (8th Cir. 2008)...................................................................................................29
STATUTES
28 U.S.C. 1350 and Note...........................................................................................................2, 55
28 U.S.C. § 1291..............................................................................................................................1
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331............................................................................................................................1
Ala. Code § 43–2–840...................................................................................................................19
OTHER AUTHORITIES
1 Joseph M. McLaughlin, McLaughlin on Class Actions § 4:5 (9th ed. 2012).............................39
1 William B. Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions § 3:13 (5th ed. 2012).................................39
Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, et. al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 4448
(2d. ed. 2012)...........................................................................................................................27
Restatement (Second) of Judgments §47 (1982)...........................................................................25
Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 17(c).....................................................................................................42, 43, 45
Fed. R. Evid. 701...........................................................................................................................50
Fed. R. Evid. 704...........................................................................................................................50
Fed. R. Evid. 801(d).................................................................................................................51, 52
Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1)..................................................................................................................52
viii