Balintulo v. Daimler AG, Ford Motor Co.

• Decision Date: 21 August 2013
• Docket Number: Docket No. 09–2785–cv.,Docket No. 09–2780–cv.,Docket No. 09–3037–cv.,Docket No. 09–2801–cv.,Docket No. 09–2781–cv.,Docket No. 09–2783–cv.,Docket No. 09–2778–cv(L).,Docket No. 09–2787–cv.,Docket No. 09–2779–cv.,Docket No. 09–2792–cv.
• Citation: 727 F.3d 174
• Parties: Sakwe BALINTULO, as personal representative of Saba Balintulo, Dennis Vincent Frederick Brutus, Mark Fransch, as personal representative of Anton Fransch, Elsie Gishi, Lesiba Kekana, Archington Madondo, as personal representative of Mandla Madondo, MPHO Alfred Masemola, Michael Mbele, Mamosadi Catherine Mlangeni, Reuben Mphela, Thulani Nunu, Thandiwe Shezi, Thobile Sikani, Lungislie Ntsebeza, Mantoa Dorothy Molefi, individually and on behalf of her deceased son, Mncekeleli Henyn Simangentloko, Tozamile Botha, Mpumelelo Cilibe, William Daniel Peters, Samuel Zoyisile Mali, Msitheli Wellington Nonyukela, James Michael Tamboer, Nothini Betty Dyonashe, individually and on behalf of her deceased son, Nonkululeko Sylvia Ngcaka, individually and on behalf of her deceased son, Hans Langford Phiri, Mirriam Mzamo, individually and on behalf of her deceased son, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. DAIMLER AG, Ford Motor Company, and International Business Machines Corporation, Defendants–Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

727 F.3d 174

Sakwe BALINTULO, as personal representative of Saba Balintulo, Dennis Vincent Frederick Brutus, Mark Fransch, as personal representative of Anton Fransch, Elsie Gishi, Lesiba Kekana, Archington Madondo, as personal representative of Mandla Madondo, MPHO Alfred Masemola, Michael Mbele, Mamosadi Catherine Mlangeni, Reuben Mphela, Thulani Nunu, Thandiwe Shezi, Thobile Sikani, Lungislie Ntsebeza, Mantoa Dorothy Molefi, individually and on behalf of her deceased son, Mncekeleli Henyn Simangentloko, Tozamile Botha, Mpumelelo Cilibe, William Daniel Peters, Samuel Zoyisile Mali, Msitheli Wellington Nonyukela, James Michael Tamboer, Nothini Betty Dyonashe, individually and on behalf of her deceased son, Nonkululeko Sylvia Ngcaka, individually and on behalf of her deceased son, Hans Langford Phiri, Mirriam Mzamo, individually and on behalf of her deceased son, Plaintiffs–Appellees,

v.DAIMLER AG, Ford Motor Company, and International Business Machines Corporation, Defendants–Appellants.

Docket Nos. 09–2778–cv(L), 09–2779–cv, 09–2780–cv, 09–2781–cv, 09–2783–cv, 09–2785–cv, 09–2787–cv, 09–2792–cv, 09–2801–cv, 09–3037–cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued: Jan. 11, 2010.

Decided: Aug. 21, 2013.

Lisa S. Blatt (Peter L. Zimroth, Ramon P. Marks, Marcus A. Asner, on the brief), Arnold & Porter LLP, Washington, DC, and New York, NY; (Jerome S. Hirsch, Joseph N. Sacca, Gary J. Hacker, on the brief), Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, & Flom LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant–Appellant Daimler AG.

Sri Srinivasan (Brian C. Anderson, Irving L. Gornstein, Anton Metlitsky, on the brief), O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant–Appellant Ford Motor Company.

Keith R. Hummel, Teena–Ann Sankoorikal, James E. Canning, John E. Lazar, Cravath, Swaine, & Moore, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant–Appellant IBM Corporation.

Steig Olson (Michael D. Hausfeld, Ralph J. Bunche, on the brief), Hausfeld, LLP, New York, NY, and Washington, DC; (Robert G. Kerrigan, on the brief), Kerrigan, Estess, Rankin & McLeod, LLP, Pensacola, FL; (Matt Schultz, on the brief), Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Echsner & Proctor, PA, Pensacola, FL; (Charles Peter Abrahams, on the brief), Abrahams Kiewitz, Cape Town, South Africa; for Plaintiffs–Appellees Sakwe Balintulo et al.

Paul L. Hoffman (Adrienne Quarry, on the brief), Schonbrun Desimone Seplow Harrison & Hoffman, Venice, CA; (Jay J. Rice, Diane E. Sammons, on the brief), Nagel Rice, LLP, Roseland, NJ; (Tyler R. Giannini, Susan Farbstein, on the brief), International Human Rights Clinic, Human Rights Program, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA; (Judith Brown Chomsky, on the brief), Law Offices of Judith Brown Chomsky, Elkins Park, PA; (Helen I. Zeldes, on the brief), Zeldes & Haeggquist, LLP, San Diego, CA; (Dumisa Buhle Ntsebeza, on the brief), Duma Nokwe Group of Advocates, Sandton, South Africa; (Michael Francis Osborne, on the brief), Cape Town, South Africa; (John Sindiso Ngcebetsha, Gugulethu Oscar Madlanga, on the brief), Ngcebetsha Madlanga Attorneys, Randburg, South Africa; (Medi Mokuena, on the brief), (Mokuena Attorneys, Johannesburg, South Africa); (Dan Stormer, Anne Richardson, on the brief), Hadsell Stormer Keeny Richardson& Renick LLP, Pasadena, CA; (Anthony DiCaprio, on the brief), Rye, NY; for Plaintiffs–Appellees Lungisile Ntsebeza et al.

Lewis S. Yelin (Ian Heath Gershengorn, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Douglass N. Letter, Robert M. Loeb, Appellate Staff, on the brief), Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC; (Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney, and David S. Jones, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on the brief), Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, NY; (Joan E. Donoghue, on the brief), U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC; for Amicus Curiae United States of America, in support of Plaintiffs–Appellees.

Peter R. Rutledge, Athens, GA; Robin S. Conrad, Amar D. Sarwal, National Chamber Litigation Center, Inc., Washington, DC; for Amicus Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States, in support of Defendants–Appellants.

Klaus Botzet, Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Federal Republic of Germany, in support of Defendants–Appellants.

Alan E. Untereiner, Mark T. Stancil, Damon W. Taaffe, Eva A. Temkin, Ariel N. Lavinbuk, Robbins, Russel, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP, Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae Federation of German Industries, Association of German Chambers of Industry and Commerce, and German American Chambers of Commerce, in support of Defendants–Appellants.

Terry Myers, Jeffrey L. Nagel, Gibbons, P.C., New York, NY, for Amici Curiae German Law Professors, in support of Defendants–Appellants.

Anthony D. Boccanfuso, Arnold & Porter, LLP, New York, NY, for Amici Curiae International Chamber of Commerce, in support of Defendants–Appellants.

Terry Myers, Jeffrey L. Nagel, Gibbons, P.C., New York, NY, for Amici Curiae International Law Professors, in support of Defendants–Appellants.

Jeffrey A. Lamken, Evan A. Young, Baker Botts L.L.P., Washington, DC, and Austin, TX, for Amici Curiae National Foreign Trade Council, USA*Engage, U.S. Council for International Business, Organization for International Investment, and National Association of Manufacturers, in support of Defendants–Appellants.

Julian Ku, Hofstra University Law School, Hempstead, NY; Michael D. Ramsey, University of San Diego Law School, San Diego, CA; for Amici Curiae Law Professors of International Law and U.S. Foreign Relations Law, in support of Defendants–Appellants.

Marco B. Simons, Richard L. Herz, Jonathan G. Kaufman, EarthRights International, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae EarthRights International, in support of Plaintiffs–Appellees.

Steven A. Kanner, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Bannockburn, IL, for Amici Curiae Former Commissioners and Committee Members of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, in support of Plaintiffs–Appellees.

Piper Hendricks, World Organization for Human Rights USA, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae International Center for Transitional Justice, in support of Plaintiffs–Appellees.

William J. Aceves, California Western School of Law, San Diego, CA, for Amici Curiae International Law Scholars, in support of Plaintiffs–Appellees.

Robert N. Kaplan, Gregory K. Arenson, Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer LLP, New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae Joseph E. Stiglitz, in support of Plaintiffs–Appellees.

Maria C. LaHood, Katherine Gallagher, Meena Jagannath, Blinne Ni Ghralaigh, Center for Constitutional Rights, New York, NY, for Amici Curiae Non–Governmental Organizations Committed to Human Rights, in support of Plaintiffs–Appellees.

Renae D. Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Minneapolis, MN, for Amici Curiae Professor John Dugard and Advocate Anton Katz, in support of Plaintiffs–Appellees.

Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Steve M. Swerdlow, Lieff Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, San Francisco, CA; Agnieszka M. Fryszman, Maureen E. McOwen, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Washington, DC; and Jennifer M. Green, University of Minnesota School of Law, Minneapolis, MN; for Amici Curiae Professors of Civil Procedure, in support of Plaintiffs–Appellees.

Bernard Persky, Kellie Lerner, Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, NY, for Amici Curiae Professors of Federal Jurisdiction and Legal History, in support of Plaintiffs–Appellees.

Eugene A. Spector, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, for Amicus Curiae South African Council of Churches, in support of Plaintiffs–Appellees.

Terry Collingsworth, Conrad & Scherer, LLP, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Congress of South African Trade Unions, in support of Plaintiffs–Appellees.

Richard L. Herz, Marco B. Simons, Jonathan G. Kaufman, EarthRights International, Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae U.S. Diplomats, in support of Plaintiffs–Appellees.

Luis Romero Requena, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, for Amicus Curiae European Commission.

David B. Goldstein, Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, P.C., New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae Republic of South Africa.

Nigel Sheinwald, British Embassy Washington, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Before CABRANES, HALL, and LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.

JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge:

The question presented is whether to issue a writ of mandamus to resolve in favor of the defendants this long-lived litigation under the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”)—a statute, passed in 1789, that was rediscovered and revitalized by the courts in recent decades to permit aliens to sue for alleged serious violations of human rights occurring abroad. The statute was first deployed in 1980 against individual defendants alleged to have perpetrated crimes against humanity, and beginning in 1997, some courts have extended its reach to suits against corporate defendants as well. See Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111, 116 (2d Cir.2010), aff'd on other grounds,––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1659, 185 L.Ed.2d 671 (2013). We consider this question in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision that federal courts may not, under the ATS, recognize common-law causes of action for conduct occurring in another country.

In these putative class-action suits brought on behalf of those harmed by the decades-long South African legal regime known as “apartheid,” the plaintiffs assert that the South African subsidiary companies of the named corporate defendants—Daimler, Ford, and IBM (the “defendants”)—aided and abetted violations of customary international law committed by the South African government.¹ In short, the plaintiffs claim that these subsidiary companies sold cars and computers to the South African government, thus facilitating the apartheid regime's innumerable race-based depredations and injustices, including rape, torture, and extrajudicial killings.

The plaintiffs brought these suits over ten years ago in federal court under the ATS,...