Luis Antonio Aguilar Marquinez v. Dole Food Company Inc, No. 14-4245 (3d Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 14-4245 _____________ LUIS ANTONIO AGUILAR MARQUINEZ, et al. v. DOLE FOOD COMPANY INC., et al. Luis Antonio Aguilar Marquinez, et al., Appellants _______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (D.C. No. 1-12-cv-00695) District Judge: Honorable Leonard P. Stark ____________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 9, 2017 Before: HARDIMAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges, and STENGEL,* District Judge. (Filed: May 29, 2018) ____________ ORDER ____________ In this appeal from a judgment entered by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Stark, J.), the panel (Hardiman, Krause, and Stengel, JJ.) certified a * The Honorable Lawrence F. Stengel, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. question of law to the Delaware Supreme Court pursuant to Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule Misc. 110.1. The Delaware Supreme Court accepted certification and issued an opinion holding that under Delaware law, the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims in 1995 by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Delgado v. Shell Oil Co., 890 F. Supp. 1324, 1375 (S.D. Tex. 1995), did not end the tolling of the Delaware statute of limitations on personal injury actions, 10 Del. C. § 8119. See Marquinez v. Dow Chem. Co., A.3d, No. 231, 2017, 2018 WL 1324178, at *1 (Del. Mar. 15, 2018). The opinion of the Delaware Supreme Court requires us to vacate the summary judgment that had been entered in favor of Defendants. While this appeal was pending, this Court decided a related case, Chavez v. Dole Food Co., 836 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2016) (en banc). There, we held that the District Court had erred in dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims in that case on first-filed grounds under circumstances materially identical to those in which it dismissed the claims of fourteen plaintiffs in this case on September 19, 2013. In light of Chavez, the District Court’s dismissal order was erroneous. Upon consideration of the record before us, the Delaware Supreme Court’s opinion in Marquinez, and this Court’s opinion in Chavez, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the District Court’s orders entered September 19, 2013, and May 27, 2014, and its final judgment entered September 22, 2014, are VACATED. 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this appeal is REMANDED to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the Delaware Supreme Court’s opinion in Marquinez and this Court’s opinion in Chavez. BY THE COURT: /s/ Thomas M. Hardiman Circuit Judge Dated: May 29, 2018 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
