Mazzoni Farms v. Dupont De Nemours

[PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT AUGUST 22, 2000 THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

No. 97-5931 D. C. Docket No. 97-00062-CV-JAL

MAZZONI FARMS, INC., a Florida corporation,

Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, d.b.a. Dupont, CRAWFORD & COMPANY, a Georgia Corporation,

Defendants-Appellees. ________________________________________________________________

_________________ No. 97-5932 _________________ D.C. Docket No. 97-00063-CIV-JAL

JACK MARTIN GREENHOUSES, INC., f.k.a. M & M ORNAMENTALS, INC., and JACK MARTIN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus

E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, d.b.a.

Dupont,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (August 22, 2000)

Before ANDERSON, Chief Judge, DUBINA and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs Mazzoni Farms and Jack Martin, commercial nurseries whose plants were allegedly damaged by a DuPont product called Benlate, appealed the district court’s order dismissing their fraudulent inducement claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Because the issues presented involved a choice-of-law provision for which there was no definitive Florida precedent, we certified the following two questions to the Supreme Court of Florida:

(1) Does a choice-of-law provision in a settlement agreement control the disposition of a claim that the agreement was fraudulently procured, even if there is no allegation that the choice-of-law provision itself was fraudulently procured? (2) If Florida law applies, does the release in these settlement agreements bar plaintiffs’ fraudulent inducement claims?

The Supreme Court of Florida has answered the first certified question in the affirmative and the second certified question in the negative, with respect to the plaintiffs whose causes of action are controlled by Florida law.1 See Mazzoni Farms, Inc., v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., ___ So.2d ___, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S446 (Fla. 2000). Moreover, the Delaware Supreme Court recently held that a release in a settlement agreement does not bar a nursery’s claim for fraud in the inducement of the release. See E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. Florida Evergreen Foliage, 744 A.2d 457 (Del. 1999). Since the Supreme Court of Florida held that the Delaware choice-of-law provision in the settlement agreement controlled the disposition of the fraudulent inducement claim, the Delaware Supreme Court’s opinion is binding on the parties.

In light of the Supreme Court of Florida’s opinion, attached hereto as an appendix, as well as the Delaware Supreme Court’s opinion, we reverse the district court’s order dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court of Florida’s opinion.2

REVERSED and REMANDED.