In re: Chiquita Brands International, Inc. Alien Tort Statute and Shareholders Derivative Litigation (Eleventh Circuit No. 24-14039)

Procedural record

1. 26 August 2026United States

   26 August 2026United States

   Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in No. 24-14039 dated 26 August 2026

   United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

   Case no.

   24-14039

   Decision summary

   The court dismissed the interlocutory appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. It held that orders enforcing attorney charging liens arising from contractual or equitable rights to payment are not appealable under the collateral-order doctrine.

   Participants

   Myriam Ramirez Garcia

   Antonio Gonzalez Carrizosa

   All Does (1-144)

   Paul David Wolf

   Conrad & Scherer, LLP

   Chiquita Brands International, Inc.

   United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

   Judge

   Jill Pryor

   Judge

   Luck

   Judge

   Brasher

   Authorities cited

   8

   • 28 U.S.C. section 1291 (28 U.S.C. § 1291)
     statute
   • SmileDirectClub, LLC v. Battle, 4 F.4th 1274 (11th Cir. 2021) (en banc)
     case law
   • Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter (Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009))
     case law
   • Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863 (1994)
     case law
   • Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. (Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949))
     case law
   • Fleming v. United States, 127 F.4th 837 (11th Cir. 2025)
     case law
   • Daniel Mones, P.A. v. Smith, 486 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1986)
     case law
   • Rosenberg v. Levin, 409 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1982)
     case law
2. Date not availableUnited States

   Date not availableUnited States

   Order Enforcing Conrad & Scherer, LLP’s Charging Lien

   United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

   Decision summary

   The district court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and enforced Conrad & Scherer, LLP’s charging lien against Paul David Wolf’s share of the settlement, directing the disputed amount into the court registry pending appeal.