Del Monte Fresh Produce

The plaintiffs Del four-card monte Fresh Produce Company and Del Monte Fresh Produce, N. A. , Inc. incorporated in Delaware Florida, individually and the defendants Dole Food Company, Inc. and Dole Fresh Fruit Company, incorporated in Hawaii and Nevada, respectively were developers, growers, processors and distributors of pineapples by profession. The plaintiff developed a new variety of extra sweet pineapples, which was named as MD-2 or the Del Monte Gold Extra Sweet.The cultivation of this new variety of pineapple was commenced in rib Rica. In the year1991, Cabo Marzo, which was a Costa Rican farm and one of Doles suppliers of pineapples, managed to procure Del Montes MD-2 plant material. Subsequently, Dole announced in the pineapple market that it had developed a new passing sweet pineapple variety, which it named as the Dole Premium Select, in order to offer rivalry to the Gold Extra Sweet variety developed by Del Monte. Procedural HistoryIn the Confederate District Court of Florida a complaint was filed by Del Monte against Dole for breach of section 1125 of the Lanham dally violation of the Florida Trade Secret Act on account of misappropriation of trade secrets conversion and the bridal of deceptive and unfair trade practices as per the provisions of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The contention of Del Monte was that not only Cabo Marzo but also Dole were cognizant of the fact that the M-2 variety of pineapple was belonged totally to Del Monte.In reply, Dole filed a motion seeking poke on the grounds of forum non conveniens. Issues legal uncertainty The legal issue raised was whether a facial expression that involved companies incorporated in the United States and conducting championship operations in the United States could be dismissed on ground of forum non conveniens if an ersatz forum was available. Broad holding In instances where there is an absence of an adequate alternative forum and where dismissal of the cas e would not further public or private refer, the court may refuse to set excursus a motion for dismissal.Narrow holding The Costa Rican court did not have the authority to sanction the compensate sought by the plaintiffs and these US corporations sold most of their products in the domestic market, therefore there had been an irreverence of the US competition law consequently, the court may refuse to allow a motion for dismissal on grounds of forum non conveniens. Doctrinal Reasoning The court referred to vigour v. cheerfulness Intl Hotels., Ltd and held that filling of forum indicated by the plaintiff should not be changed, unless the facts of the case warranted such a change (Doe v. Sun Intl Hotels. , Ltd , 1998). The court further opined, on the basis of Republic of Panama v. BCCI Holdings that there should exist, an adequate alternative forum and that adjudication in such a forum should be conducive to public and private interest (Republic of Panama v. BCCI Holdings , 1997 ).It also held that adjudication in an alternative forum could totally deprive Del Monte of a remedy. indemnity Reasoning The doctrines established by the extant case law formed the basis for this decision and no change to the existing case law was effected. Miscellaneous All the presiding judges were unanimous in their opinion. References Doe v. Sun Intl Hotels. , Ltd , 20 F. Supp. 2d 1328 (S. D. Fla 1998). Republic of Panama v. BCCI Holdings , 119 F. 3d. 935 (11th Circuit Court 1997).