Issuu on Google+

: S1 '. . j~, I,'q, ::...

l'

........ ., t,,' • ~; ,, \ *.' : ..

'!

~:-

.

I

iI

"

f"

1--: U:. . LESLIE S. FuKUMOTO, ATIORNEY AT LAW, A LAW CORPORATION

2UlU JUH -4 PM 3: 39 l

1\".',10

I

I ".

••

i

LESLIE S. FUKUMOTO,

......

#2708

~ ~

" ~.'

'-

...

,.

,,'

Suite 1711, Davies Pacific Center 841 Bishop Street Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone No. (808) 537-4541 Attorney for Plaintiffs

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT FOR THE STATE OF HAW API LEOPOLDO MAURICIO QUEZADA VITONERA; ROBERTO WILLIAM BARONA BENITEZ; ODILO CASTRO LOPEZ; MANUEL JOSE PORRAS ALVAREZ; MAURO GREGORIO ZERDA GUERRA; JUAN CRISTOBAL ENRIQUEZ Plaintiffs, vs. THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY; SHELL OIL COMPANY; OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION (individually and as successor to Occidental Chemical Company and Occidental Chemical Agricultural Products, Inc., Hooker Chemical and Plastics, Occidental Chemical Company of Texas and Best Fertilizer Company); AMVAC CHEMICAL CORPORATION; DOLE :FOOD COMPANY, INC.; DOLE fRESH FRUIT COMPANY; ST ANDARD FRUIT COMPANY; ST ANDARD FRUIT AND STEAMSHIP COMPANY; DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE, N.A., INC; DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (HA WAIl) INC; PINEAPPLE GROWERS

) ) )

)

)

) )

)

)

)

)

)

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

)

1 C-1

l -;

~. -0

6

CIVIL NO. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ (PRODUCT LIABILITY)

COMPLAINT; SUMMONS

P WP


ASSOCIATION OF HAWAII; JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; and DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) )

COMPI~AINT

Plaintiffs above-named, by and through their attorney, Leslie S. Fukumoto, hereby file this Complaint against the Defendants, above-named, Plaintiffs intend to request entry, Pro Hac Vice of the law firm HENDLERLAW, P.C., of 816 Congress Ave., Suite 1670, Austin, Texas 78701, Telephone No. (512) 439-3202, and allege and aver as follows: I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1.

Plaintiffs are citizens of the country of Ecuador. The Plaintiffs have had their health,

welfare, and lives damaged as a result of exposure to an extremely hazardous chemical pesticide, dibromochloropropane ("DBCP"), made and distributed by some of the Defendants and distributed and used by other Defendants, or at their discretion, on lands where the Plaintiffs were exposed. 2.

Plaintiffs bring this civil action to recover compensation for damages to their health,

welfare, and lives that resulted from the injuries caused by the Defendants. II. JURISDICTION

3.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claims in this Complaint pursuant to

Haw. Rev. Stat. ยง 603-21.5, personal jurisdiction over the Defendants pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. ยง 634-35 and venue over the claims in this Complaint pursuant to Haw. Rev . Stat. ยง 603-36. Venue is proper in this Circuit as the majority of the parties in related litigation has so agreed. III. PARTIES

2


4.

Plaintiffs LEOPOLDO MAURICIO QUEZADA VITONERA, ROBERTO WILLIAM

BARO~'JA

BENITEZ, ODILO CASTRO LOPEZ, MANUEL JOSE PORRAS ALVAREZ,

MAURO GREGORIO ZERDA GUERRA, JUAN CRISTOBAL ENRIQUEZ are reside:nts of Ecuador and were exposed to and injured by the chemical pesticide, dibromochloropropane (DBCP). 5.

Defendant The Dow Chemical Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal

place of business in Michigan, and which, at all times pertinent herein, was authorized to do and was doing business within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 6.

Defendant Shell Oil Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of

business in Texas, which, at all times pertinent herein, was authorized to do and was doing business within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 7.

Defendant Occidental Chemical Corporation is a New York corporation with its principal

place of business in Texas, which, at all times pertinent herein, was authorized to do and was doing business within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 8.

Defendant Amvac Chemical Corporation is a California corporation with its principal

place of business in California, which, at all times pertinent herein, was authorized to do and was doing business within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 9.

Defendant Dole Food Company, Inc. was a Hawaii corporation at the time of the events

giving rise to this case. At all times pertinent herein, Dole Food Company, Inc was authorized to do and was doing business within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Dole Food Company, Inc. is the ultimate parent corporation of Standard Fruit Company, Standard Fruit and Steanlship Company, and Dole Fresh Fruit Company. These subsidiaries are so integrated and controlled by Dole Food Company, Inc. that they are the alter ego of Dole Food Company, Inc. The

3


Plaintiffs are suing these Defendants for the tortious activities perfonned at the behest and under the diredion of their alter ego Dole Food Co., Inc and its predecessors in interest.

1bese

Defendants are referred to collectively as "The Dole Defendants.'l 10.

Defendant Dole Fresh Fruit Company is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of

business in California, which, at all times pertinent herein, was authorized to do and was doing business within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 11.

Defendant Standard Fruit and Steamship Company is a Delaware corporation with its

principal place of business in California, which, at all times pertinent herein, was authorized to do and was doing business within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 12.

Defendant Standard Fruit Company is a Delaware corporation, with its pJincipal place of

business in Ecuador, which, at all times pertinent herein, was authorized to do and was doing business within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 13.

Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A. is a Florida corporation with its principal

place of business in Florida, which, at all times pertinent herein, was authorized to do and was doing business within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 14.

Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaii) Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its

principal place of business in Hawaii, which, at all times pertinent herein, was authorized to do and was doing business within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 15.

Defendant Pineapple Growers Association of Hawaii is a California corporation with its

principal place of business in Hawaii. Pineapple Growers Association of Hawaii, at all times pertinent herein, was authorized to do and was doing business within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.

16.

Defendants The Dow Chemical Company, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Shell Oil

4


Company, Amvac Chemical Corporation, Standard Fruit Company, Standard Fruit and Steamship Company, Dole Food Company, Inc, and Dole Fresh Fruit Company, Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., and Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaii) Inc. and their subsidiaries and/or affiliates, manufactured, sold, distributed, or used nematocides containing the chemical dibromochloropropane, commonly known as DBCP. 17.

John Does 1-10, Jane Does 1-10, Doe Partnerships 1-10, and Doe Corporations 1-10

("Doe Defendants") are sued under fictitious names because their names and identities are presently unknown to the Plaintiffs, except that they are persons and/or entities who are in the same manner presently unknown to the Plaintiffs and who engaged in the activities alleged herein; and/or are in some manner responsible for the injuries and damages to the Plaintiffs; and/or are persons who conducted some activity in a negligent, and/or willful manner who failed to fulfill a duty or obligation, whose conduct or omission to act was a proximate cause of the injuries or damages to the Plaintiffs; and/or were in some manner related to the previously named Defendants engaged in the activities alleged herein. Plaintiffs ask to insert their true names and capacities, activities and/or responsibilities, whether individual or corporate, when their names are ascertained. 18.

The Plaintiffs allege that they were exposed to this toxic product manufactured,

distributed, and/or used by Defendants from 1960 and thereafter, and as a result, have suffered serious and permanent injuries including, but not limited to, severe injury to their reproductive capacities. 19.

The Plaintiffs claim damages that exceed the minimal jurisdictional amount required by

this Court. IV. BACKGROUND

5


20.

Defendants manufactured, distributed, or used DBCP from approximately 1960 and

thereafter. Some of the defendants were involved in the development and manufacturing of DBep including Dow, Shell, the PGAH, Occidental and AMY AC. Dow and Shell, with the direction and involvement of the PGAH and its Hawaiian based research arm, the Pineapple Research Institute (PRI), tested and developed DBep, eventually becoming co-owners of the DBCP patents. The manufacturers and the PGAH marketed it first to the pineapple industry and then to commercial fruit growers generally and the banana industry in particular for use in Plaintiffs' countries. The PGAH also engineered and developed the delivery systems used to apply DBep including injectors and the boom spray, both specifically used to apply DBep in ways that proved unreasonably dangerous and reckless, resulting in substantial exposure from overspray, spillage and splashing, and the concentration of vapors under the canopies formed by the banana leaves, all of which was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs exposure, injuries and damages. Plaintiffs used DBep application devices and systems to apply DBep into the soil to protect against microscopic worms called nematodes that dwell in cultivated soils. 21.

Unknown to the plaintiffs, each breath taken during the daily hours of mixing and using

DBep became a health hazard, whether they handled the chemical directly or worked in the general vicinity of others handling DBep. The fumes released by the chemical remained trapped within the banana canopy created by the oversized banana leaves, which cut off almost all ventilation. Workers were also exposed through their skin when DBep splashed on them in the course of refilling their canisters, when their injectors hit rocks or other objects, or the spray booms showered them in the chemical. Many workers absorbed so much DBep each day that their urine would give off the smell of the chemical at night. And DBep often leeched into ground water supplies contaminating the drinking water ingested by workers, including

6


Plaintiffs, compounding exposure. In addition to drinking contaminated water, chemical residue contaminated food the Plaintiffs ate, clothing Plaintiffs wore and soil Plaintiffs worked in. A.

22.

Sterility

Workers affected by DBCP suffer from sterility, one signature effect of DBCP exposure.

DBCP decreases the quantity of sperm, causing men to be azoospermic (no sperm) or oligospermic (abnormally low sperm count). DBCP also affects the motility and formation of sperm, causing production of sperm that is slow moving and/or deformed, thereby further decreasing fertility and, where insemination occurs, diminishing the viability of offspring. As a result, men adversely affected by DBCP are significantly less likely to father a healthy, normal child .

.8. 23.

Cancer

The National Cancer Institute ("NCI") lists DBCP as one of the most potent known

carcinogens. NCI tests demonstrate that DBCP induces cancer in a wide range of organs and sites, generally at the lowest doses tested. Studies of the exposed workers have demonstrated excess cancer rates and there is no safe threshold for exposure. C.

24.

Birth Defects

DBCP has been associated with a variety of birth defects, and is a suspected cause of

miscarriages in exposed women. Women working on banana plantations in various countries have reported multiple consecutive miscarriages. D.

25.

Kidney and Liver

The United States EPA has found that DBCP potentially causes acute damage to kidneys

and the liver, and that long-term exposure to DBCP potentially causes permanent damage to kidneys.

7


E. 26.

Other Harmful Health Effects

Studies have revealed DBCP's hannful effects upon the health of other bodily systems.

DBCP is a serious irritant to eyes, skin and sinuses, and to gastro-intestinal and respiratory systems, and has been found to be a central nervous system depressant. The effects upon these systems can be pennanent as well as acute, depending on the level, frequency and length of exposure.

F. 27.

Environmental Harm

Environmentally, DBCP is regarded as a highly persistent and mobile pesticide. DBCP

decomposes slowly in moist soil with studies showing DBCP may remain in soils for years and it is able to migrate through certain soils. DBCP has been widely found as a contaminant in ground and surface water in Hawaii, California and elsewhere in the United States and abroad. It is highly chemically stable in water, even in very small amounts. It has also been reported as a low level air contaminate. In California, municipalities have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars from the manufacturers of DBCP for costs related to the clean-up of DBCP contaminated water supplies. These companies paid large settlements to several communities for groundwater contamination from DBCP and litigation has been filed in Hawaii against many of these same Defendants over contamination of drinking water wells containing DBCP over the maximum contaminant level ("MCL") on Maui, Lanai and Oahu. The MCL for DBCP in drinking water is 2 parts per billion; the EPA's goal for water systems, because of DBCP's serious health risks, is zero contamination.

G. 28.

Testing For Hazards

What little pre-market toxicology research was done on DBCP was conducted in or

around 1958, by the Defendant Dow's company doctor, Dr. Ted Torkelson, and by Defendant

8


Shell's consultant, Dr. Charles Hine of the University of California Medical School in San Francisco. In testing of DBCP on rats, both labs found DBCP caused retarded growth, organ damage, shrunken testes or testicular atrophy, and sterility. 29.

In an April 1958 "confidential report," Dr. Hine wrote that "among the rats that

died, the gross lesions were especially prominent in lungs, kidneys, and testes. Testes were usually extremely atrophied." Dow's first in-house report came three months later, in July 1958, and concluded that DBCP was "readily absorbed through the skin and high in toxicity

in inhalation."

Dow's data also showed that "liver, lung and kidney effects might be

expected" and that "testicular atrophy may result from prolonged, repeated exposure.'" H.

USDA Registration: 1961

30.

Hine, working jointly for Dow and Shell, drafted a report in support of FDA registration

in May of 1961 calling for work place concentrations of DBCP to be kept under one part per million ("ppm"), and reconunending impermeable protective clothing if skin contact was likely. Louis Lykken, in charge of government registration of chemicals for Shell, commented that the suggestion was "impractical." Responding to Hine's observation that repeated exposure could affect human reproduction, Lykken wrote: "Leave out speculation about possible harmful

conditions to man. This is not a treatise on safe use." I.

Product Labeling

31.

In 1961, a USDA registration official wrote Shell upon receipt of the company's proposed

labels, stating that "in view of the testicular atrophy demonstrated to occur in experimental

animals, we would like to have information regarding health records of those individuals who have been employed for an extended period in the manufacture or formulation of products containing DBCP." A flurry of memos ensued. The following excerpts from Shell

9


documents demonstrate Defendant Shell's attitude: August 21, 1961: "We have discussed with Dr. Zavon USDA's precautionary labeling and the hazards associated with this pesticide chemicaL He shares our opinion that USDA is being over cautious in their views on labeling products containing this pesticide chemicaL It is the consensus that Dr. Zavon and a representative of Dow's toxicology group should meet with the USDA toxicology section representatives to settle this issue." August 29, 1961: "We have just received and reviewed the subject technical bulletin [and information brochure on Nemagon (Shell's flagship product)] and have some reservations with regard to the adequacy of the statements under safety precautions. In light of the fact that the threshold of odor detection has been reported at one point at seven parts per million and the lowest level studied [five parts per million] has demonstrated damage after repeated exposures, it appears the statement "there is a good margin of safety in handling" would be difficult to justify and might be prosecuted as negligent." November 9, 1961: "The pesticides regulations branch of the U. S. Department of Agriculture has expressed concern over the hazards associated with the use of Nemagon soil fumigant and proposed stringent labeling for the~ various formulations now being marketed. It is the consensus in the division office that the USDA is being overly cautious and the precautionary statements proposed could have an adverse affect on the sale of this product. This matter has been discussed with the USDA representatives and they are willing to relax their labeling requirements if we can provide them with a history of safe use experience in the field and in the manufacturing plant."

DBCP was entered in the toxicology card file in Dow's medical library. The toxicology card for Dow's flagship product, Fumazone, noted eye and skin affects, and stated that testicular damage "may result from chronic exposure to active material." Liver and kidney damage were also

discussed, but the toxicology cards were soon altered to delete information on testicular damage. 32.

As a result of Defendants' lack of precautions, Plaintiffs had regular, heavy exposure to

DBCP through vapor inhalation, skin absorption and/or ingestion of contaminated water or products or foods. Production manuals contained no warnings of the testicular affects ofDBCP, and did not advise the use of safety gear or other precautions. The labels on Fumazone certainly did not tell them, and workers such as Plaintiffs and farm workers throughout the world

10


invariably state that no warrung of the product's dangers was ever given by any of the Defendants.

J.

Banning and Exportation

33.

In the United States, DBCP had by 1975 been termed a suspected carcinogen by the EPA.

In July 1977, thirty-five of one hundred fourteen workers manufacturing DBep at Occidental's Lathrop, California plant were found to be sterile. One month later, the EPA suspended DBCP from all but a few uses in Hawaii. Even in Hawaii, use was permitted only under heavily restricted conditions with extensive protective equipment because manufacturers' representatives assured regulatory authorities that DBCP could be used safely under such conditions. Nevertheless, in 1985, the EPA canceled the registration for DBCP for all uses because despite industry claims to the contrary there was no safe level of exposure. Unfortunately, the large scale use of DBCP on pineapple plantations in Hawaii has led to extensive groundwater contamination in the islands as well as toxic occupational exposure to thousands of Hawaiian pineapple field workers. 34.

The U.S. ban on manufacturing ofDBCP, however, did not prevent the Defendants from

exporting DBCP. The Manufacturers still had stocks to sell. When Dow informed Standard that it planned to suspend sales and wait for EPA test results, Standard threatened to sue, complaining that "your halt of shipping our outstanding orders is viewed as a breach of (~ontract." Dow agreed to continue delivery only after Standard agreed to indemnify it against claims for injuries resulting from DBCP use. This controversy even became the focus of hearings in the United States Senate: [l]ndustry studies ... were kept secret from domestic chemical company employees and from agricultural workers using DBCP in the field. Now, tragically, twenty years later, the sterilization that had been predicted by laboratory tests became a reality - increasing numbers of workers in the manufacturing plants and banana

II


fields found they could not have children. EPA finally banned DBCP from nearly all domestic farm uses, but the companies then dumped their unused stocks overseas where it continued to be used ...The tale of DBCP is an appalling one. Senator 1. Leahy, Circle of Poison:

Impact of U. S. Pesticides on Third World Workers,

Hearings before the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, 102 Cong., First Sess. 1 (June 5,1991). 35.

When available stocks of DBCP began to be exhausted, Castle and Cooke, Inc. (now

known as Dole Food Company, Inc.) entered into negotiations with Dow to arrange for Dow to set up a DBCP plant to be run by Castle & Cooke, Inc. outside the United States. Thus, despite all the known hazards of DBCP and the damage done to workers exposed to DBCP, Castle & Cooke, Inc. continued to look for a way to circumvent the health related ban on production of DBCP in the United States.

v. 36.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - GENERAl" NEGLIGENCE

All relevant allegations and facts set forth in the preceding paragraphs are realleged and

incorporated by reference herein where applicable. 37.

Defendants had a legal duty to exercise reasonable care in the manufacture, sale, testing,

quality assurance, quality control, distribution, use, and/or placement of DBCP into the stream of commerce, including a duty to assure that Persons who might be exposed to the product did not suffer from adverse health effects. Defendants breached this duty and were negligent in that they failed to exercise reasonable care in the manufacture, sale, testing, quality assurance, quality control, distribution, use, and/or placement ofDBCP into the stream of commerce. 38.

In addition to PGAH's role in testing and developing DBCP with Dow and Shell, and

promoting and marketing it to the commercial fruit industry, the PGAH engineered and developed the technology and delivery systems used with DBCP, including but not limited to,

12


the injector and the boom spray.

At the direction of those who tested, developed and

manufactured DBCP, including the PGAH, both types of application equipment were utilized to apply DBCP on banana plantations in Plaintiffs' countries substantially contributing to Plaintiffs' exposure through spillage and splashing when applied by injector, and overspray that drifted through the air when applied by boom spray, contaminating the Plaintiffs' breathing zones; in fact, both types of application techniques designed and engineered by the PGAH-the injector and the boom spray--caused the accumulation and concentration of DBCP vapors in the Plaintiffs' breathing zones, especially under the near impenneable canopies fonned by thousands of banana leaves. The banana leaves created an insular environment trapping the dangerous DBCP vapors and exponentially compounding exposure to Plaintiffs in the area. The defective design, marketing and use of the equipment was a substantial factor causing Plaintiffs' exposure and resulting injuries and damages. 39.

The acts and/or omissions of Defendants that constitute negligence include, but are not

limited to, the following: a.

providing DBCP-containing products to Plaintiffs to handle and apply;

b.

failing to properly instruct Plaintiffs in the handling and applications of DBCP足

containing products; c.

using DBCP-containing products in locations and in a manner causing DBCP

exposure to Plaintiffs; d.

distributing for use DBCP or DBCP-containing products when it was foreseeable

to Defendants that the Plaintiffs would use the DBCP in the manner it was used and that such use would foreseeably cause the injuries of which Plaintiffs now complain; e.

failing to adequately warn the Plaintiffs and the public of the dangerous

13


characteristics of DBCP and the health hazards of exposure to it, or to cause their subsidiaries or affiliates to do so; [.

failing to warn the Plaintiffs' in their native language of the health hazards of

exposure to DBCP, or to cause their subsidiaries or affiliates to do so; g.

failing to provide the Plaintiffs \vith information as to what would be reasonably

safe protective clothing and proper protective equipment and apparatuses, if in truth there were any, to protect the Plaintiffs from health hazards of exposure to DBCP, or to cause their sub~idiaries

h.

or affiliates to do so; failing to take reasonable precautions or exerCIse reasonable care to adopt,

publish, and enforce a safety plan for a safe method of handling and applying DBCP, or to cause their subsidiaries or affiliates to do so; 1.

failing to adequately supervise and instruct the Plaintiffs in the safe and proper

handling and applying of DBCP-containing products, or to cause their subsidiaries or affiliates to do s); J.

failing to implement proper methods and techniques of handling and applying of

DBCP-containing products, or to cause such implementation, or to cause their subsidiaries or affillates to do so; k.

failing to implement and enforce a safe use program to instruct the Plaintiffs in

the wearing of adequate protective clothing and equipment during handling and applying of DBCP-containing products, or to cause their subsidiaries or affiliates to do so; 1.

failing to use a substitute material for DBCP in the nematocide, or to cause their

subsidiaries or affiliates to do so to prevent exposure; m.

failing to adequately test DBCP prior to releasing DBCP-containing products for

14


distribution and use to determine safe methods of handling and applying them, or to cause their subsidiaries or affiliates to do so; n.

failing to reveal the results of tests conducted on DBCP to the Plaintiffs, public

health and safety officials andlor the public, or to cause their subsidiaries or affiliates to do so; o.

concealing from the Plaintiffs information concerning the observed effects of the

products on the Plaintiffs and their co-workers, or causing Defendants' subsidiaries or affiliates to do so; p.

failing to adequately monitor the health of the Plaintiffs and their co-workers

exposed to the products, or to cause their subsidiaries or affiliates to do so; q.

failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing DBCP so as to avoid the

aforementioned risks to individuals from occupational exposure to DBCP, or to cause their subsidiaries or affiliates to do so; r.

failing to conduct adequate pre-market and laboratory testing and post-marketing

surveillance to determine the safety of DBCP, or to cause their subsidiaries or affiliates to do so; s.

failing to provide adequate training to fruit company medical care providers so

that health care providers were aware of the health dangers posed to the workers exposed to DBCP, or to cause their subsidiaries or affiliates to do so; t.

marketing, supplying and using DBCP despite its potential for side effects, and

failing to adequately test for carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic potential or other adverse health effects, particularly where such effects were known by Defendants to be potentially severe, permanent and not readily recognizable to the user; and, u.

continuing to distribute or use DBCP or DBCP-containing products after its toxic

side effects became known and/or after its distribution and use was banned in the contiguous

IS


United States; and, v.

designing and placing into the stream of commerce defectively designed

applicator devices and systems, the use of which was a substantial factor in Plaintiffs exposure to DBep. 40.

Defendants' negligent acts and/or omissions were a legal cause of Plaintiffs injuries and

damages, as more fully set forth below, and said acts and/or omissions are the basis of other causes of action set forth particularly herein.

VI. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - NEGLIGENT DESIGN 41.

All relevant allegations and facts set forth in the preceding paragraphs are realleged and

incorporated by reference herein where applicable. 42.

Defendants had a legal duty to take reasonable measures to design their product to protect

against reasonably foreseeable risk of injury. Defendants did not take such reasonable measures and instead designed, manufactured, distributed, and sold DBeP-containing products and application devices and systems despite reasonably foreseeable risks of injury to Plaintiffs, who used the product and worked around the product in a foreseeable manner. 43.

Defendants' negligent design was a legal cause of Plaintiffs injuries and damages, as

more fully set forth below. VII. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION - NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN

44.

All relevant allegations and facts set forth in the preceding paragraphs are realleged and

incorporated by reference herein where applicable. 45.

Defendants were part of the chain of distribution of DBeP-containing products and

application devices and systems in that they manufactured, sold, distributed, used or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce their DBeP-related products. Defendants knew or should

16


have known that DBeP-containing products and application devices and systems created risks of injury to Plaintiffs when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner. By acts and omissions more fully described herein, Defendants failed to use ordinary care to warn the intended and foreseeable users of DBeP-containing products and application devices and systems of said risks, as well as those bystanders whose exposure was foreseeable, or Defendants failed to cause Defendants' subsidiaries, affiliates or buyers to do so. 46.

Defendants' failure to warn was a legal cause of Plaintiffs injuries and damages, as more

fully set forth below. VIII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

47.

NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

Plaintiffs reallege all relevant allegations in the preceding paragraphs :md incorporate

them by reference herein where applicable. 48.

In the course of designing, formulating, manufacturing, selling, distributing, and/or using

DBep, DBeP-containing products and DBep application devices and systems, Defendants made representations concerning the safety of DBep, DBeP-containing products and DBep application devices and systems to Plaintiffs. Defendants supplied false information for the guidance of others, and Defendants did not exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating this information.

These representations contained misrepresentations,

including but not limited to: a.

false statements of fact;

b.

statements of opinion based on false statements of fact;

c.

statements of opinion that Defendants knew to be false; and,

d.

expressions of opinion that were false, made by Defendants who claimed or

implied they had special knowledge of the subject matter of the opinion.

17


49.

Plaintiffs and those directing Plaintiffs were in the class of persons intended by

Defendants to receive or "benefit" from Defendants' representations.

Plaintiffs and those

directing Plaintiffs justifiably relied on representations made by Defendants. 50.

The negligent misrepresentations and justifiable reliance were a legal cause of Plaintiffs

injuries and damages, as more fully set forth below. IX. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION - STRICT LIABILITY

51.

Plaintiffs reallege all relevant allegations in the preceding paragraphs and incorporate

them by reference herein where applicable. 52.

Defendants were part of the chain of distribution of DBCP-containing products in that

they manufactured, sold, distributed, used or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce DBCP足 containing products. 53.

The DBCP and DBCP products and application equipment and devices designed,

manufactured, marketed, sold or otherwise distributed by Defendants were defective in design or formulation in that, it was more dangerous than an ordinary user would expect when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner. 54.

Further, and/or in the alternative, the DBCP and the DBCP application devices and

systems desib'1led, manufactured, marketed, sold or otherwise distributed by Defendants were defective in design or formulation in that, when it left the hands of the manufacturer and/or suppliers, the risks of danger inherent in the design or formulation outweighed the benefits associated with the design or formulation and the product was used in a reasonably foreseeable manner. 55.

Further, and/or in the alternative, the DBCP and the DBCP application devices and

systems designed, manufactured, marketed, sold or otherwise distributed by Defendants were

1&


defective in design or formulation, in that, when it left the hands of the manufacturer and/or suppliers, it was unreasonably dangerous because it was more dangerous than other alternatives. 56.

Further and/or in the alternative, the DBCP and the DBCP application devices and

systems designed, manufactured, marketed, sold or otherwise distributed by Defendants were defective in design or formulation, in that, when it left the hands of the manufacturer and/or suppliers, it involved substantial danger known to them but not readily recognized by the ordinary user, and not accompanied by adequate warnings of the danger or instructions for safe use. 57.

The DBeP-containing products that were used in proximity to and applied by the

Plaintiffs were designed, manufactured, formulated, marketed and/or distributed by Defendants and subsequently sold, directly and indirectly, to the Plaintiffs or to Plaintiffs' employers who are either named defendants or were directed to use DBCP by named defendants. Similarly, the nBCP application devices and systems were designed, manufactured, formulated, marketed, sold and/or distributed by Defendants and subsequently sold, directly and indirectly to the Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' employers who are either named Defendants or were directed to use these DBCP application devices and systems by named defendants. The products left the possession and control of Defendants in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition, induding, but not limited to, the following respects: a.

Defendants defectively designed the products in that they contained DBCP;

b.

Defendants failed to warn those whose exposure was foreseeable of the health

risks of exposure and how to avoid such exposure; c.

neither the DBeP-containing products nor the DBep application devices or

systems contained an adequate and timely warning in the Plaintiffs' language: regarding the

19


serious health hazards associated with DBCP; d.

the products did not contain an adequate and timely warning in the Plaintiffs'

language concerning safety precautions and the need for protective equipment when working with DBCP; e.

the DBCP products were unreasonably dangerous per se;

f.

the DBCP application devices and systems were unreasonably dangerous per se;

g.

the substance of the warning on the approved labels was inadequate because the

approval of the labels was based on false, fraudulent and misleading and incomplete information supplied to the regulatory agencies responsible for approving the labels; and, h.

the DBCP products and the DBCP application devices and systems were defective

due to inadequate post-marketing warning or instruction because, after the manufacturer km::w or should have known of the risk of injury from DBCP, it failed to provide adequate warnings to foreseeable users or consumers or exposed persons of the product and application devices and systems and continued to distribute the products. 58.

Defendants' distribution of DBCP-containing products containing manufacturing defects,

design defects, marketing defects and/or defective warnings and/or defective instructions was a legal cause of Plaintiffs' injuries and damages, as more fully set forth below. X. SIXTH CAUSE OF' ACTION - BREACH OF WARRANTY

59.

Plaintiffs reallege all relevant allegations in the preceding paragraphs and incorporate

them by reference herein where applicable. 60.

The Defendants warranted that their DBCP-containing products were of good and

merchantable quality and fit for their intended use, both expressly and impliedly, by making representations, affirmations of fact, and/or promises concerning their products' fitness for

20


intended use and/or safety, and by marketing and selling them for such intended use. The Plaintiffs would show that they worked in close proximity to the Defendants' DBCP-containing products and the Defendants knew or ought to have reasonably anticipated these working conditions. Defendants had or ought to have had a reasonable expectation that Plaintiffs would use or be exposed to Defendants' DBCP-containing products. Plaintiffs relied upon Defendants' skill or judgment in selecting a suitable product and safe application device and system for the use intended. The Defendants breached their express and implied warranties that their DBCP products and DBCP application devices and systems were of good and merchantable quality and were fit for their particular intended use by placing their DBCP-containing products into the stream of commerce where Plaintiffs encountered it as end users and/or bystanders. 61.

Defendants' DBCP-containing products' and DBCP application devices' and systems'

non-conformance with Defendants' express and implied warranties-specifically, the inherent yet undisclosed unreasonably dangerous nature of the products-was a legal cause of Plaintiffs injuries and damages, as more fully set forth below. XI. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION - PREMISES LIABILITY

62.

Plaintiffs reallege all relevant allegations in the preceding paragraphs and incorporate

them by reference herein where applicable. 63.

Defendants that owned, occupied or controlled land where Plaintiffs exposure to DBCP

occurred had a duty of reasonable care to maintain the land in a safe condition and give adequate warnings to those reasonably anticipated to be on the land of the dangers that existed. These Defendants breached this duty by exposing Plaintiffs to the risks of health hazards of DBCP exposure. Defendants who owned, occupied, or controlled land where Plaintiffs exposure to OBCP occurred had sufficient control over the land to take reasonable measures to protect

21


Plaintiffs from DBCP exposure, either by preventing said exposure or by adequately warning and/or instructing Plaintiffs concerning risks so that Plaintiffs could take steps to protect themselves, but Defendants failed to take such reasonable measures. This failure was a breach of their duty to Plaintiffs and was a legal cause of Plaintiffs injuries and damages, as fully set forth below. 64.

Defendants that did not own and/or occupy land where Plaintiffs exposure to DBCP

occurred affirmatively took actions to induce Plaintiffs and others to handle and apply DBCP足 containing products, including but not limited to, the use of DBCP application devices and systems in settings such as those where Plaintiffs' were exposed to DBCP. These Defendants' actions created a false appearance of safety concerning use of and exposure to DBCP upon which Plaintiffs relied to their detriment. Defendants' acts or omissions inducing Plaintiffs' reliance were a legal cause of Plaintiffs injuries and damages, as more fully set forth below. XII. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION - AIDING AND ABETTING

AND CONSPIRACY TO MISREPRESENT AND COMMIT FRAUD

65.

Plaintiffs allege all relevant allegations in the preceding paragraphs and incorporate them

by reference herein where applicable. 66.

Plaintiffs further allege that the named Defendants and/or their predecessors in interest,

their subsidiaries and/or affiliates, knowingly agreed, contrived, combined, confederated and conspired among themselves and with one or more others to cause the Plaintiffs' injuries, illnesses, and diseases by exposing the Plaintiffs to harmful and dangerous DBCP-containing products and to deprive the Plaintiffs of the opportunity of informed free choice as to whether to use the DBCP-containing products and to expose themselves to the dangers by marketing a product they knew to be unreasonably dangerous. 67.

Defendants committed the above-described wrongs by willfully misrepresenting and

22


suppressing the truth as to the risks and dangers associated with the use of and exposure to Defendants' DBeP-containing products and the use of DBep application devices and systems. Each of the Defendants aided and abetted the other Defendants in committing the tortious acts that caused the Plaintiffs' injuries by designing, manufacturing, selling, distributing, marketing or using DBep and DBep application devices and systems and withholding information from Plaintiffs. 68.

In furtherance of these conspiracies, Defendants committed acts and/or omISSIons,

including but not limited to the following: a.

For many years, Defendants, individually, jointly and in conspiracy with each

other, possessed medical and scientific data, and test reports which clearly indicated that DBCP足 containing products were unreasonably dangerous, hazardous, deleterious, carcinogenic, and potentially deadly; and that DBep was suspected of being mutagenic, teratogenic and causing infertility; b.

despite medical and scientific data, literature and test reports possessed by or

available to Defendants, Defendants individually, jointly and in conspiracy with each other, fraudulently, willfully and maliciously: (l)

withheld, concealed, suppressed and otherwise ignored the medical and

scientific data, literature and test reports regarding the risks of DBCP-containing products from the workers who were exposed to them and using them, the public, and the agricultural community; (2)

caused to be released, published, and disseminated medical and scientific

data, literature, and test reports containing information and statements regarding the risks of DBeP-containing products which Defendants knew were incorrect, incomplete, and misleading;

23


and, c.

by the false and fraudulent representations, omissions, and concealments set forth

herein, the named Defendants individually, jointly, and in conspiracy with each other, intended to induce the Plaintiffs to rely upon the false and fraudulent representations., omissions, and concealments and to continue to expose themselves to the dangers inherent in the use of and exposure to Defendants' DBCP-containing products. 69.

The Dole Defendants and the Del Monte Defendants aided, abetted and conspired with

the POAH in developing, marketing and promoting the use of DBCP. These Defendants took actions in furtherance of this conspiracy by meeting in Hawaii regularly, serving on the Board of Trustees of the POAH, directing the activities of the POAH and subsidizing and funding the POAH and its research arm, the Pineapple Research Institute, in developing and testing DBCP for use as a commercial nematocide. These Defendants also jointly aided, abetted and conspired with each other in the development of the DBCP application devices and delivery systems and promoted the use of DBCP without proper or adequate safety measures, and promoted the application of DBCP through these delivery systems that were in fact defective in design in Plaintiff., countries. These actions were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs exposure, injuries ~md damages. 70.

The Plaintiffs and others, reasonably and in good faith, relied upon the false and

fraudulent representations, omissions, and concealments made by the Defendants regarding the nature of the DBCP-containing products and use of the DBCP application devices and systems. 71.

As a legal result of the Plaintiffs' and others' reliance on the Defendants' false and

fraudulent representations, omissions, and concealments, the Plaintiffs have sustained injuries and damages as more fully set forth below.

24


XIII. GROSS NEGLIGENCE, WILLFUL AND WANTON CONDUCT

72.

Plaintiffs reallege all relevant allegations in the preceding paragraphs and incorporate

them by reference herein where applicable. 73.

Defendants acts and/or omissions in designing, manufacturing, distributing, marketing,

supplying and using DBCP and DBCP application devices and systems despite the dangerous side effects and in failing to adequately test for carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic potential or other adverse health effects, from exposure, particularly where defendant had reason to know DBCP had serious, dangerous side effects and which effects it knew or should have known to be permanent constitute gross negligence, indifference and callous disregard of public health, and willful and wanton conduct, so as to subject Defendants to the payment of punitive damages. 74.

Defendants' acts and/or omissions herein described constitute gross negligence, in that

they demonstrate a more extreme disregard for the health and welfare of others than is fairly characterized by ordinary negligence. 75.

Further, Defendants acts and/or omissions herein described were willful in that they were

premeditated, unlawful, without legal justification, and/or done with a bad motive or purpose, and with indifference to their natural consequences. Defendants' acts and/or omissions were wanton in that they were reckless, heedless, characterized by extreme foolhardiness, and in callous disregard of, and callous indifference to, the rights or safety of others. 76.

Defendants' grossly negligent, willful and wanton acts or omissions include, but are not

limited to, the following: a.

Defendants knowingly concealed information concerning the observed health

effects ofDBCP or DBCP-containing products from the Plaintiffs, the United States and foreign governments, and the medical, scientific and agricultural communities;

25


b.

Defendants knew of the hazards posed by DBCP-containing products, yet with

reckless disregard for the anticipated consequences they exposed Plaintiffs to DBCP products in operations involving the Plaintiffs and/or sold and distributed those DBCP products for use by the Plaintiffs; c.

Defendants knew of the hazards to the Plaintiffs posed by DBCP-containing

products and by the methods of application utilized, yet, they continued to use these methods and/or allow others to continue to use these methods; d.

Defendants knew of the hazards to the Plaintiffs posed by DBCP-containing

products, yet, they failed to provide adequate protective clothing and equipment to the Plaintiffs; e.

Defendants knew of the hazards to the Plaintiffs posed by DBCP-containing

products, yet, they did not instruct consumers of the product, including the Plaintiffs, in safe application techniques; and, f.

Defendants continued to sell, purchase and use DBCP-containing products even

after the United States regulatory authorities suspended or banned their use and, therefore, after Defendants were indisputably on notice ofDBCP's dangerous properties. 77.

As a legal result of the Defendants' grossly negligent, willful and wanton acts or

omissions, the Plaintiffs have sustained injuries and damages as more fully set forth below. XIV. ALTER EGO AND AGENCY

78.

Defendants and their agents, subsidiaries and/or predecessors are liable to the Plaintiffs

individually and on alternative liability theories, "alter ego", single business enterprise, continuing business enterprise, and/or successor liability theories.

Plaintiffs allege that the

agents, employees, managers, officers, superintendents and/or servants of these Defendants carried out the acts and omissions described herein in the course and scope of their employment

26


for these: and other named Defendants in the furtherance of a common corporate cause or purpose. 79.

Dole Food Company, Inc. is the successor in interest to Castle & Cooke, Inc. Standard

Fruit and Steamship Company is the alter ego of Dole Food Company, Inc., Standard Fruit Company, and/or Dole Fresh Fruit Company. Standard Fruit Company is the alter ego of Dole Food Company, Inc., Standard Fruit and Steamship Company, and/or Dole Fresh Fruit Company. Dole Fresh Fruit Company is an alter ego of Standard Fruit Company, Standard Fruit and Steamship Company, Dole Food Company, Inc., Standard Fruit Company de Costa Riea, S.A., Standard Fruit Company de Honduras, S.A., Dole Fresh Fruit International, Limited" and Dole Fresh Fruit International, Inc. These subsidiaries are so integrated and controlled by Dole Food Company, Inc. that they are the alter ego of Dole Food Company, Ine, as well as each other, and constitute a single business enterprise. 80.

Plaintiffs, on information and belief, allege that Standard Fruit Company, Standard Fruit

and Steamship Company, Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole Fresh Fruit Company, Del Monte Fresh Fruit Company, Inc., and the Pineapple Growers Association of Hawaii ("the Grower Defendants") performed many of the tortious acts described herein through their agents, predecessors and/or alter ego corporations, both foreign and domestic. 81.

Plaintiffs, on information and belief, allege that Amvac Chemical Corporation, Shell Oil

Company, the Dow Chemical Company, and Occidental Chemical Corporation performed many of the tortious acts described herein through their agents, predecessors and/or alter ego corporations, both foreign and domestic. XV. COMPENSATORY DAMAGES

82.

Defendants' tortious conduct herein described is a legal cause of Plaintiffs injuries and

27


damages. As a result of Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiffs are entitled to general and special damages and have been rendered sterile and infertile, have developed sexual and reproductive abnormalities, have suffered other health maladies, all of which have only manifested recently, and/or are subject to an increased risk of cancer and other adverse health conditions. Plaintiffs have been damaged in some or all of the following particulars for which they have brought suit, all in such amounts as will be shown at the time of trial: a.

Plaintiffs have suffered in the past and will continue to suffer in the future great

physical pain and suffering, mental anguish and emotional distress; b.

Plaintiffs have suffered in the past and will continue to suffer in the future

medical, rehabilitative, and health related expenses; c.

Plaintiffs have suffered in the past and will continue to suffer in the future lost

income, lost wages, and lost earning capacity; d.

Plaintiffs have suffered in the past and will continue to suffi~r in the future

permanent and partial disability and physical impairment; e.

Plaintiffs have suffered in the past and will continue to suffer in the future

disfigurement; f.

Plaintiffs have suffered an extraordinarily increased risk of developing serious

illness, including cancer, damage to the testes, kidneys, liver and gastrointestinal tract, damage to skin and eyes, and respiratory system, from exposure to DBCP-containing products that will require medical monitoring. To detect the early onset of such diseases and illnesses the Plaintiffs will incur substantial expenses for medical testing, evaluation, examination, and other related expenses. The Plaintiffs' need for medical monitoring is reasonable in light of the follmving reasons:

28


(1)

Plaintiffs have suffered substantial exposure to Defendants' DBCP足

containing products; (2)

DBCP-containing products are so toxic and hazardous to human health

that the U.S. government has banned their use; (3)

diseases caused by DBCP-containing products are serious and potentially

(4)

Plaintiffs have a substantially increased risk for developing such diseases;

(5)

early detection and diagnosis of diseases caused by DBCP-containing

fatal;

products \\1.11 improve the prospects for cure, treatment, and minimization of pain and disability; g.

Plaintiffs have suffered in the past and will continue to suffer in the future an

extraordinarily increased risk of genetic damage; h.

Plaintiffs have suffered in the past and will continue to suffer in the future a loss

of capacity to enjoy life; and, L

Plaintiffs have suffered a loss of economic support and loss of consortium.

lne Plaintiffs claim damages (including compensatory damages, punitive damages and other damages, if any) that exceed the minimal jurisdictional amount required by this Court.

XVI. PUNITIVE DAMAGES

83.

Plaintiffs reallege all relevant allegations contained m the prevIOUS paragraphs and

incorporate them by reference herein where applicable. 84.

As a direct and proximate result of all the Defendants' breach of duties to the Plaintiffs,

the Plaintiffs have sustained injuries and damages as set forth above as well as humiliation and social ostracism because they are unable to have a family in accordance with the cultural norms of their society. The Plaintiffs will show that the damages incurred were legally caused by the

29


grossly negligent, willful and wanton acts and omissions, consciOUS indifference and other disregard for the health and welfare of the Plaintiffs on the part of the named Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, managers, superintendents, managing directors, and officers in that they ignored and concealed evidence available to them which demonstrated that DBCP and DBCP-containing materials were harmful and deadly to persons coming in contact with such materials.

The Defendants' committed acts and omissions described above maliciously,

intentionally, and with flagrant disregard for the rights of the Plaintiffs and others, and with the actual awareness on the part of the Defendants that the acts and omissions would foreseeably result in great bodily harm to the Plaintiffs. Consequently, users of DBCP-containing products, such as the Plaintiffs, were deprived of knowledge of the risks and thereby deprived of the opportunity of free choice as to whether or not to expose themselves to DBCP-containing products manufactured, formulated and used by the named Defendants. The Plaintiffs will show that as a result of the aforesaid conduct, they should be compensated in an amount that would punish the Defendants, act as a deterrent to Defendants for the commission of similar wrongs, and serve as an example or warning to Defendants and others not to engage in such conduct. 85.

The Plaintiffs claim damages (including compensatory damages, punitive damages and

other damages, if any) that exceed the minimal jurisdictional amount required by this Court. PRAYER

86.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants, and each of

them, jointly and severally, for general and special damages and for punitive damages, for their costs expended, for interest on the judgment from the date rendered until paid, at the legal rate, for pre-judgment interest, and for such other and further relief both at law and at equity, to which the Plaintiffs may show themselves justly entitled.

30


87.

The Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows: a.

For general damages in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this

Court, according to proof; b.

For special damages, including but not limited to, medical, incidental, hospital,

and service expenses according to proof; c.

Loss of earnings and earning capacity according to proof;

d.

Medical monitoring according to proof;

e.

Prejudgment and post judgment interest as provided by law;

f.

Compensatory damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of the Court,

according to proo f; g.

Consequential damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of the Court,

according to proof; h.

Punitive damages according to proof;

1.

Attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs of this action; and,

J.

Such further relief as this Court deems necessary, just, and proper.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, June 4, 2010.

~~ Attorney for Plaintiffs

31


LESLIE

S.

FUKUMOTO,

ATTORNEY AT LAW,

A LAW CORPORATION

LESLIE S. FUKUMOTO, Suite 1711, Davies Pacific Center

841 Bishop Street

Honolulu, HI 96813

Telephone No. (808) 537-4541

#2708

Attorney for Plaintiffs

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT FOR THE STATE OF HAWAI'I LEOPOLDO MAURICIO QUEZADA VITONERA; ROBERTO WILLIAM BARONA BENITEZ; ODILO CASTRO LOPEZ; MANUEL JOSE PORRAS ALVAREZ; MAURO GREGORIO ZERDA GUERRA; JUAN CRISTOBAL ENRIQUEZ Plaintiffs, vs. THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY; SHELL OIL COMPANY; OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION (individually and as successor to Occidental Chemical Company and Occidental Chemical Agricultural Products, Inc., Hooker Chemical and Plastics, Occidental Chemical Company of Texas and Best Fertilizer Company); AMVAC CHEMICAL CORPORATION; DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC.; DOLE FRESH FRUIT COMPANY; STANDARD FRUIT COMPANY; STANDARD FRUIT AND STEAMSHIP COMPANY; DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE, N.A., INC; DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (HAWAII) INC; PINEAPPLE GROWERS

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

) ) }

} ) } )

}

)

CIVIL NO. _ _ _ _ _ _ __ (PRODUCT LIABILITY)

SUMMONS


ASSOCIATION OF HAWAII; JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; and DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, Dekndanh.

) ) ) ) ) )

SUMMONS STATE OF HAW AI' I

TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT(S):

You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon Plaintiffs' attorney, LESLIE S. FUKUMOTO, Attorney at Law, A Law Corporation, whose address is 841 Bishop Street, Davies Pacific Center, Suite 1711, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813, an Answer to the Complaint which is attached. This action must be taken within twenty (20) days after service of this Summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to make your Answer within the twenty (20) day time limit, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint. This summons shall not be personally delivered between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on premises not open to the general public, unless a judge of the above-entitled court permits, in writing on this summons, personal delivery during those hours. A failure to obey this summons may result in an entry of default and default judgment against the disobeying person or party. "'_:_:_;2_C:_'~f_!---H:"~ DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N. ANAYA

CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENT

2


Legal Complaint of Ecuador Banana Workers