navida

1
Navida, et al. v. Dizon, Jr TOPIC: TORTS AND CRIMES Proceedings before the Texas Courts 1. Beginning 1993, a number of personal injury suits were filed in different Texas state courts by citizens of twelve foreign countries, including the Philippines. 2. The thousands of plaintiffs sought damages for injuries they allegedly sustained from their exposure to dibromochloropropane (DBCP), a chemical used to kill nematodes (worms), while working on farms in 23 foreign countries. 3. The cases were eventually transferred to, and consolidated in, the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. 4. The cases therein that involved plaintiffs from the Philippines were “Jorge Colindres Carcamo, et al. v. Shell Oil Co., et al.,” which was docketed as Civil Action No. H-94-1359, and “Juan Ramon Valdez, et al. v. Shell Oil Co., et al.,” which was docketed as Civil Action No. H-95-1356. 5. The defendants in the consolidated cases prayed for the dismissal of all the actions under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

Upload: jacob-dalisay

Post on 24-Sep-2015

214 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

DESCRIPTION

conflict

TRANSCRIPT

Navida, et al. v. Dizon, JrTOPIC: TORTS AND CRIMES

Proceedings before the Texas Courts1. Beginning 1993, a number of personal injury suits were filed in different Texas state courts by citizens of twelve foreign countries, including the Philippines. 2. The thousands of plaintiffs sought damages for injuries they allegedly sustained from their exposure to dibromochloropropane (DBCP), a chemical used to kill nematodes (worms), while working on farms in 23 foreign countries. 3. The cases were eventually transferred to, and consolidated in, the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.4. The cases therein that involved plaintiffs from the Philippines were Jorge Colindres Carcamo, et al. v. Shell Oil Co., et al., which was docketed as Civil Action No. H-94-1359, and Juan Ramon Valdez, et al. v. Shell Oil Co., et al., which was docketed as Civil Action No. H-95-1356. 5. The defendants in the consolidated cases prayed for the dismissal of all the actions under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.