## Facts

- Latin American banana-plantation workers alleged personal injuries from exposure to dibromochloropropane (DBCP) used on plantations in Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, and Panama.
- Plaintiffs sued Dole Food Company and related fruit and chemical companies in Hawaii state court, asserting only Hawaii common-law tort claims.
- Dole impleaded Israeli chemical companies (the Dead Sea Companies), alleging they manufactured some of the DBCP.
- The Dead Sea Companies were indirectly owned through corporate tiers in which the State of Israel held ownership interests at certain times.
- The Dead Sea Companies removed under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), asserting they were “agencies or instrumentalities” of Israel; Dole also sought removal on the theory that federal common law of foreign relations supplied federal-question jurisdiction.
- The federal district court denied remand and dismissed on forum non conveniens; plaintiffs appealed, challenging subject-matter jurisdiction and removal.

## Issues

1. Whether state-law tort claims involving foreign plaintiffs and overseas conduct were removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 on the theory that federal common law of foreign relations governed or was necessarily implicated.
2. Whether the Dead Sea Companies qualified as “agencies or instrumentalities” of a foreign state under 28 U.S.C. § 1603(b), permitting removal under § 1441(d) based on Israel’s indirect ownership through intermediate entities.
3. If federal subject-matter jurisdiction was absent, whether the district court could dismiss on forum non conveniens rather than remand.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of remand and its forum non conveniens dismissal.
- The court held there was no federal-question jurisdiction: foreign-relations implications did not convert plaintiffs’ state-law claims into claims “arising under” federal law under the well-pleaded complaint rule.
- The court held the Dead Sea Companies failed to qualify as FSIA instrumentalities because Israel did not directly own a majority ownership interest in the companies as required by the statute.
- Because the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, the proper disposition was remand to state court.

## Legal Principles

- Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; anticipated defenses or asserted federal interests do not supply removal jurisdiction.
- A case does not arise under federal law merely because it involves foreign parties, overseas conduct, or potential effects on foreign relations.
- FSIA “agency or instrumentality” status requires satisfaction of the statutory ownership or organ requirements in § 1603(b); indirect ownership through corporate tiers is insufficient to meet the majority-ownership requirement for removal under § 1441(d).
- When a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction after removal, it must remand rather than reach merits-related or discretionary doctrines such as forum non conveniens.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit concluded the removed DBCP tort action did not belong in federal court because the complaint pleaded only state-law claims and the Israeli third-party defendants were not FSIA instrumentalities under the statute’s ownership requirement; it therefore required remand to state court.


Patrickson v. Dole Food Co., 251 F.3d 795 (9th Cir. 2001)