16‐773‐cv
Schuler v. Rainforest Alliance, Inc.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A
SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007 IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY
FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURTʹS LOCAL RULE 32.1.1.
WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST
CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION
ʺSUMMARY ORDERʺ). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON
ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in
the City of New York, on the 28th day of March, two thousand seventeen.
PRESENT: DENNY CHIN,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
Circuit Judges,
COLLEEN McMAHON
Chief District Judge.*
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐x
ALAIN PASCAL BENARD GALLEY SCHULER, JEAN
CHRISTIAN PHILIPPE GALLEY SCHULER,
Plaintiffs‐Appellants,
v. 16‐773‐cv
RAINFOREST ALLIANCE, INC.,
Defendant‐Appellee.
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐x
*
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon, of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
FOR PLAINTIFFS‐APPELLANTS: LAUREN VALASTRO (Ann L. Al‐Bahish, on
the brief), Jackson Gilmour & Dobbs, PC,
Houston, Texas, and Thomas P. Aicher, Cleary
Shahi & Aicher, P.C., Rutland, Vermont.
FOR DEFENDANT‐APPELLEE: SAMUEL SPITAL (Stosh Silivos, on the brief),
Holland & Knight LLP, New York, New York.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Vermont
(Reiss, C.J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiffs‐appellants Alain Pascal Bernard Galley Schuler and Jean Christian
Philippe Galley Schuler (the ʺGalleysʺ) appeal from a judgment of the district court
entered February 12, 2016, granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendant‐
appellee the Rainforest Alliance, Inc. (the ʺRainforest Allianceʺ). The district court set
forth its reasoning in an opinion and order filed February 11, 2016.
We review de novo a granting of judgment on the pleadings. See L‐7
Designs, Inc. v. Old Navy, LLC, 647 F.3d 419, 429 (2d Cir. 2011). Where, as here, a district
court relied on international comity to accord preclusive effect to a foreign courtʹs
adjudication, we review the decision de novo as well. See Diorinou v. Mezitis, 237 F.3d
133, 140 (2d Cir. 2001). We assume the partiesʹ familiarity with the underlying facts, the
procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
‐ 2 ‐
1. Background
This case arise from a dispute over the ownership of property in
Campeche, Mexico. The Galleys claim that on or about April 13, 2003, their neighbors
in Campeche, Agropecuaria Santa Genoveva, S.A.P.I. de C.V. (ʺAGSAʺ), illegally took
control of approximately 3,823 acres of their land (the ʺPropertyʺ). On April 16, 2003,
the Galleys filed suit against AGSA in the Second Lower Civil Court of the First State
Judicial District in Campeche (the ʺMexican Lower Courtʺ) to recover the Property.
The Rainforest Alliance is a nonprofit organization that performs
sustainability analyses and issues certifications to landowners that their forestry
operations and products comply with forest management standards of the Forest
Stewardship Council (ʺFSCʺ). In 2006, AGSA sought FSC Forest Management
Certification from the Rainforest Alliance for its forestry project, which included the
Property. On November 6, 2006, the Galleys informed the Rainforest Alliance that they
opposed the certification because (1) they owned a portion of the land at issue, and (2)
AGSAʹs operations were not in compliance with FSC standards because they involved
clear cutting indigenous forests and destroying archeological ruins.
On August 28, 2009, the Rainforest Alliance issued an FSC Forest
Management Certificate to AGSA for its project, but excluded the Property from the
certification. The Certificate was valid for five years subject to annual audits.
‐ 3 ‐
On January 15, 2010, the Mexican Lower Court ruled against the Galleys
in their suit to recover the Property. The court ruled that the Galleys owned the land
identified in their deeds, but that the land identified in the deeds was not the Property.
Because the Galleys failed to prove that AGSA was occupying any of the land that fell
under the metes and bounds of the Galleysʹ deeds, the court held that ʺthe elements of
the action to recover possession were not shown,ʺ and ʺdeclare[d] inadmissible the
claim for recovery of possession filed by [the Galleys] against [AGSA] . . . and therefore
absolve[d] the defendants of all claims brought by the [Galleys].ʺ App. 88. The Galleys
appealed and a Mexican appellate court affirmed the decision.
On December 5, 2012, the Rainforest Alliance granted FSC certification to
AGSA for its project, including the Property. This certification expired in August 2014.
On October 24, 2014, the Galleys filed this action below against the
Rainforest Alliance, the FSC, and U.S. Working Group. In their Complaint, the Galleys
allege that the Rainforest Alliance improperly granted AGSA a sustainability
certification for 3,823 acres of land located in Campeche, i.e., the Property. The Galleys
claim that they own the disputed property, not AGSA, and that in issuing the
certification to AGSA, the Rainforest Alliance has undermined the Galleysʹ claim to the
Property. The Galleys assert three causes of action: (1) negligence, in that the Rainforest
Alliance allegedly breached a duty to use reasonable care in ʺdetermining the
ownership of lands,ʺ App. 20; (2) defamation, in that the Rainforest Alliance allegedly
‐ 4 ‐
made ʺfalse and defamatory statements to third parties about the Galleys and their
property,ʺ App. 21; and (3) slander of title, in that the Rainforest Alliance allegedly
ʺpublished false statements about the Galleysʹ titleʺ to the Property, which ʺencouraged
AGSA to continue its illegal invasion of, and illegal harvesting of woodʺ from the
Property, App. 22‐23. They also sought declaratory relief based on their purported
ownership of the Property.
The Galleys voluntarily dismissed their claims against the FSC and the
U.S. Working Group without prejudice. The district court granted the Rainforest
Allianceʹs motion for judgment on the pleadings and entered judgment accordingly.
This appeal followed.
2. Discussion
We affirm for substantially the reasons given by the district court. The
Galleysʹ claims are premised on their assertion that they hold legal title to the Property.
That assertion, however, is precluded by the rulings of the Mexican courts and
principles of international comity.
Generally, international comity is defined as ʺthe recognition which one
nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another
nation.ʺ In re Maxwell Commcʹns Corp., 93 F.3d 1036, 1046 (2d Cir. 1996) (citing Hilton v.
Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 163‐64 (1895)). Here, the Mexican Lower Court held that the
‐ 5 ‐
Galleys were not the owners of the Property and dismissed their claims against AGSA.
In 2011, the decision was affirmed on appeal.
The district court correctly chose to defer to the Mexican courtsʹ decisions
regarding ownership. In re Maxwell Commcʹns, 93 F.3d at 1047 (a court may ʺdecline to
exercise jurisdiction in a case properly adjudicated in a foreign stateʺ). The Mexican
courts ruled that the Galleys did not prove they owned the Property. By pursuing their
claims here, the Galleys are essentially asking an American court to overrule the
Mexican courtsʹ judgment that the Galleys failed to prove ownership of property
located in Mexico. We agree with the district court that principles of comity preclude
us from doing so.
The Galleys insist that the court did not rule that AGSA actually owned
the Property, and that therefore AGSA may not assert that it does. The argument fails,
however, because even if the Mexican court did not hold explicitly that AGSA owned
the Property, the Mexican court did hold explicitly that the Galleys failed to provide
sufficient evidence to demonstrate ownership of the Property. Accordingly, because
they cannot establish their ownership of the Property, plaintiffs cannot prevail on their
claims for negligence, defamation, and slander of title.
‐ 6 ‐
We have reviewed the Galleysʹ remaining arguments on appeal and
conclude they are without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district
court.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine OʹHagan Wolfe, Clerk
‐ 7 ‐