Timberlane Lumber Company v. Bank Of America National Trust And Savings Association

749 F.2d 1378 (1984)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P is an Oregon partnership whose primary business is the purchase and distribution of lumber in the United States. P formed a partnership with two Honduran corporations (Danli Industrial, S.A., and Maya Lumber Company, S. de R.L.) that were incorporated and principally owned by the general partners of P. The partnership sought to develop alternative sources of lumber for delivery to the United States from Honduras. It eventually purchased an interest in an existing but financially unstable lumber mill owned by the Lima family. Before P purchases, the ownership of the Lima enterprise had been transferred to a group of Lima employees, Bank of America (D), and another competing lumber mill, Casanova. P purchased its interest from the Lima employees, who had priority over the other claims. D refused to sell its share in the Lima enterprise because it wanted to protect its interests in other competing lumber mills by driving P out of the Honduran lumber market. D transferred its mortgage to Casanova, a Lima enterprise competitor, for no consideration other than a portion of the proceeds collected. Casanova subsequently assigned both interests to Caminals who allegedly attempted to eliminate the Lima enterprise. Caminals tried to foreclose on the mortgages by placing an 'embargo' on all property owned by the Lima enterprise. A Honduran court appointed an 'intervenor' to prevent a diminution of the Timberlane assets. Caminals obtained embargoes against P's partners Maya and Danli. P claims that D paid the intervenor to use guards and troops to shut down P's milling operation. P's employees allege that they were falsely arrested and imprisoned. Eventually, all of the claims relating to the mortgage foreclosure were resolved in the Honduran court system. P filed this antitrust action seeking more than $5,000,000 in damages from D and its Honduran subsidiaries. The district court dismissed the antitrust action on the ground that the act of state doctrine prevented the federal courts from entertaining suit and he tort actions on the basis of forum non conveniens. The decision was vacated and the appeals court announced a tripartite test for determining the extent of federal jurisdiction over claims alleging illegal antitrust behavior abroad. The case was remanded. After discovery, D again filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court dismissed the antitrust claim. It dismissed the tort claims on forum non conveniens grounds. P appealed.