The underlying claims track a pattern stretching back nearly two decades: the plaintiffs — family members of trade unionists, banana workers, political organizers, social activists, and others allegedly targeted and killed by the AUC paramilitary organization from at least 1992 through 2004 — allege that Chiquita funded, armed, and otherwise supported terrorist organizations in Colombia to maintain profitable control of the country's banana-growing regions. Chiquita, incorporated in New Jersey with its principal place of business in Florida, is described in the complaints as a leading international producer, distributor, and marketer of bananas and other produce.
The 826 plaintiffs filed twelve separate state court complaints in New Jersey's Mercer County Superior Court in June 2025, each naming fewer than 100 plaintiffs. Chiquita removed all twelve cases to the District of New Jersey the same day, asserting both diversity jurisdiction and CAFA mass-action jurisdiction. Judge Georgette Castner consolidated the cases for briefing purposes and designated the Cubides Ramirez matter as the lead action.
On the forum-defendant rule, Chiquita argued that plaintiffs had waived its protections through their prior participation in the long-running federal MDL in the Southern District of Florida — the same MDL that centralized related AUC-funding suits beginning in 2008. Applying a four-factor framework drawn from Patel v. Smith, Judge Castner held that no waiver occurred. The motion to remand came quickly after removal, no significant use of federal court processes had occurred in the instant matters, and — critically — at least 167 of the 826 plaintiffs had never filed suit in the District of New Jersey, with more than 40 having never filed any federal complaint against Chiquita at all. The court also distinguished the bad-faith conduct that drove the waiver finding in In re Sorin 3T Heater-Cooler, noting that Chiquita alleged procedural gamesmanship but no affirmative misrepresentations, and that plaintiffs are free to choose state court by limiting their claims to state law.
On CAFA, Chiquita contended that plaintiffs could not break up claims previously asserted in a federal case with more than 100 plaintiffs into separate sub-100 state court complaints. Judge Castner rejected that argument. Applying the Third Circuit's analysis in Ramirez v. Vintage Pharmaceuticals, the court held that no explicit or implicit proposal for a joint trial appeared in the current filings. Unlike the single 113-plaintiff complaint at issue in Ramirez, plaintiffs here deliberately filed twelve separate complaints, each below the 100-plaintiff threshold — a structural choice the Third Circuit identified as sufficient to insulate plaintiffs from CAFA jurisdiction. The court also declined to treat prior MDL participation as evidence of intent to try the new state court matters jointly, noting both that many current plaintiffs were never MDL parties and that Ramirez looks to conduct after the complaint is filed, not to conduct in earlier, separate litigation.
The court denied plaintiffs' request for fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), finding that while Chiquita's removal arguments were unpersuasive, they were not objectively unreasonable.
The Eleventh Circuit is separately evaluating whether to uphold jury verdicts rendered in the MDL in favor of certain Colombian plaintiffs, with oral argument held on January 30, 2026.