Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1048 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/04/2016 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 08-01916-MD-MARRA/JOHNSON

IN RE: CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

ALIEN TORT STATUTE AND
SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION
____________________________________________/
This Document Relates To:
ATS ACTION
____________________________________________/
Case No. 9:08-cv-80465-KAM
DOES (1-144) et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
CHIQUITA BRANDS INT., INC., et al.
Defendants
____________________________________________/

Response in Opposition to Conrad & Scherer, LLP's

Motion for Entry of Modified Briefing Schedule
With respect to Does 1-144, Conrad & Scherer LLP's Motion for Entry of a
Modified Briefing Schedule, R. 318, should be denied.

The Court should further

consider Conrad & Scherer's Renewed Motion to Withdraw in light of the developments
in the Drummond, Dole, and instant cases, and use its inherent power to protect Conrad
& Scherer's other clients, rather than sanctioning their abandonment.
Conrad & Scherer LLP cannot show good cause for modifying the scheduling
order. Conrad & Scherer have not even attempted to contact any of Does 1-144 to date.

Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1048 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/04/2016 Page 2 of 3

See April 1, 2016 email of Eric Hager, Exhibit 1, attached hereto. "We have not yet
contacted any of the Does 1-144 in relation to our renewed motion to withdraw." A lack
of diligence in pursuing a claim is sufficient to show a lack of good cause. S. Grouts &
Mortars, Inc. v. 3M Co., 575 F.3d 1235, 1241 (11th Cir. 2009).
Granting an extension would be futile. It would not cure Conrad & Scherer's
inability to contact Does 1-144 at all. None of Does 1-144 would have any reason to
know who Conrad & Scherer even are. Although Conrad & Scherer pretends to have an
ethical responsibility to notify them, Conrad & Scherer never saw any reason to contact
them before, to advise them of its claim to represent them, which it has pressed for the
last eight years. My first clients in this case were people I met with in secret, and their
cases were more extreme than the average.1 Half of Does 1-144 have signed documents
renouncing any relationship with Terry Collingsworth. The other half could not be easily
reached, and this was in 2008.

It's unlikely Conrad & Scherer could locate more than

one or two of them, and any contacts would be viewed with extreme suspicion.2
More importantly, does anyone know why Conrad & Scherer LPP wants to
withdraw from this case? Mr. Hager would not answer this question, and should explain
this in his Reply. The answer seems obvious: they are trying to avoid liability for the
witness tampering, spoliation of evidence and perjury observed in the Drummond and
Dole case, which infect this case as well. If Conrad & Scherer have done things to harm
their own clients, such that they now seek to avoid liability, why would the Court allow
1

The Court may take judicial notice of a 'paro armado' (armed blockade) which is in force in Uraba at the
time of this writing. Approximately seven police officers have been assassinated in the last few days, and
no one is allowed to leave their homes. See "Urabeos make it clear that they, not the police, are the
authority
in
north
Colombia,"
Colombia
Reports,
April
1,
2016,
online
at
http://colombiareports.com/urabenos-show-police-really-authority-colombia/
2
Further, Conrad & Scherer intends advise these individuals that Terry Collingsworth now represents
them, see Exhbit 1, which we dispute. We view Mr. Collingsworth and IRAdvocates as Conrad &
Scherer's agents and alter ego, and the withdrawal as a sham.

Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1048 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/04/2016 Page 3 of 3

them to withdraw? There is an obvious conflict of interest between Conrad & Scherer
and their clients. We are not aware of what message has been communicated to the Perez
Plaintiffs, whom we do not represent, but we doubt they have been fully informed about
the RICO conspiracy. See Barger v. City of Cartersville, Ga., 348 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11th
Cir. 2003) (holding that the plaintiff could not avoid the consequences of the acts or
omissions of [her] freely selected [attorney]). This will be true even if Conrad &
Scherer LLP withdraws.
Conclusion
The Court should step in and protect Conrad & Scherer's clients sua sponte.
Conrad & Scherer cannot show good cause for an order modifying the briefing schedule.
Whatever they're doing, it's not in the interests of their clients and there is nothing good
about it. No more time should be granted for Conrad & Scherer LLP to notify anyone of
its intent to withdraw, which the Court should not even permit.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Paul Wolf
_______________________
Paul Wolf, CO Bar #42107
PO Box 46213
Denver CO 80201
(202) 431-6986
paulwolf@yahoo.com
fax n/a

April 4, 2016