Del Monte Fresh Produce

The plaintiffs Del Monte Fresh Produce party and Del Monte Fresh Produce, N. A. , Inc. incorporated in Delaware Florida, independently and the defendants Dole regimen Company, Inc. and Dole Fresh Fruit Company, incorporated in Hawaii and Nevada, respectively were developers, growers, processors and distributors of ananass by profession. The plaintiff developed a new revolution of tautologic sweet pineapples, which was named as MD-2 or the Del Monte Gold Extra attractive.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 earn Del Montes MD-2 plant material. Subsequently, Dole announced in the pineapple market that it had developed a new super sweet pineapple variety, which it named as the Dole Premium Select, in order to purpose competition to the Gold Extra Sweet variety developed by Del Monte. Procedural HistoryIn the Southern District Court of Florida a complaint was filed by Del Monte against Dole for breach of section 1125 of the Lanham effect violation of the Florida Trade Secret Act on account of misapplication of trade secrets conversion and the adoption 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 non only Cabo Marzo but also Dole were cognizant of the fact that the M-2 variety of pineapple was belonged solely to Del Monte.In reply, Dole filed a motion seeking arc on the movement of forum non conveniens. Issues legal question The legal place raised was whether a human face that involved companies incorporated in the join States and conducting business 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 secondary forum and where dismissal of the causal agent wo uld not further public or private interest, the court may refuse to set aside a motion for dismissal.Narrow holding The Costa Rican court did not have the authority to sanction the remedy desire by the plaintiffs and these US corporations sold most of their products in the domestic market, wherefore there had been an infringement of the US competition law consequently, the court may refuse to allow a motion for dismissal on grounds of forum non conveniens. Doctrinal cerebrate The court referred to Doe v. Sun Intl Hotels., Ltd and held that choice 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 ground of Republic of Panama v. BCCI Holdings that there should exist, an adequate alternative forum and that adjudication in such a forum should be causative to public and private interest (Republic of Panama v. BCCI Holdings , 1997).It also held tha t adjudication in an alternative forum could totally deprive Del Monte of a remedy. Policy 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. heterogenous 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).