Doe v. Qi

Decision Date08 December 2004
Docket NumberNo. C 02-0695 CW.,No. C 02-0672 CW.,C 02-0672 CW.,C 02-0695 CW.
Citation349 F.Supp.2d 1258
PartiesJane DOE I, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Liu QI, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff A, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Xia Deren, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of California

Matthew Eisenbrandt, Tania Rose, Law Offices of Michael Sorgen, San Francisco, CA, Terri Marsh, Washington, DC, Michael S. Sorgen, Law Offices of Michael Sorgen, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.

Alison N. Barkoff, Alexander Kenneth Haas, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

Joseph Remcho, Thomas A. Willis, Remcho Johansen & Purcell, San Leandro, CA, for Amicus.

Karen Parker, San Francisco, CA, Morton Sklar, Washington, DC, for Intervenor.

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

WILKEN, District Judge.

Plaintiffs in these two related cases are Falun Gong practitioners who claim that acts of Defendants, local government officials of the People's Republic of China, violated the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) and the Torture Victims Protection Act (TVPA). After Defendants failed to file a responsive pleading, the Clerk entered default. Plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment in both cases. The Court referred the motions to Magistrate Judge Chen, who issued a Report and Recommendation.

Upon the Court's request, the United States Department of State filed a statement of interest in each case, expressing its concerns with the Report and addressing Plaintiffs' objections to the Report. The United States asked the Court to stay this case pending the Supreme Court's forthcoming ruling in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2739, 159 L.Ed.2d 718 (2004), and the Court did so. Then it ordered supplemental briefing from the parties and requested a further statement of interest from the United States in light of Sosa. The Court then referred the matter back to Magistrate Judge Chen for an amended report in the light of Sosa. Plaintiffs filed objections to the Amended Report. Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Amended Report and all of the papers filed by the parties and the United States, the Court finds the Report correct, well-reasoned and thorough. The Report adequately considers and properly rejects the arguments advanced by Plaintiffs in their objections. In addition, the Report properly addresses the concerns expressed by the United States.

Thus, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs' objections and adopts the Amended Report in its entirety. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion for de novo determination of this matter. Judgment shall enter accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(Docket No. 18, 19) (Docket No. 18)

CHEN, United States Magistrate Judge.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                   I. GENERAL BACKGROUND ........................................................1266
                      A. Jane Doe I, et al. v. Liu Qi ...........................................1266
                      B. Plaintiff A, et al. v. Xia Deren .......................................1268
                      C. Response by the U.S. State Department and the PRC ......................1270
                  II. CRITERIA FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT .............................................1271
                 III. SERVICE OF PROCESS ........................................................1274
                  IV. THE ALIEN TORT CLAIMS ACT AND TORTURE VICTIM
                       PROTECTION ACT ...........................................................1276
                   V. THE FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ACT ........................................1279
                      A. Application of FSIA to Individual Officials ............................1281
                      B. Whether Scope of Authority is Measured by International or Foreign
                          Sovereign's Law .......................................................1283
                
                      C. Whether Defendants Acted Within the Scope of Their Authority Under
                          Chinese Law ...........................................................1285
                      D. FSIA Sovereign Immunity Not Applicable to Defendants Liu and Xia .......1287
                  VI. ACT OF STATE DOCTRINE .....................................................1288
                      A. Background on the Act of State Doctrine ................................1288
                      B. Whether Defendants' Conduct Constituted Acts of State ..................1292
                      C. The Sabbatino Analysis .................................................1295
                         1. Degree of International Consensus ...................................1296
                         2. Implications for Foreign Relations ..................................1296
                         3. Continued Existence of the Accused Government .......................1303
                         4. Whether the Foreign State Was Acting in the Public Interest .........1306
                         5. Summary .............................................................1306
                 VII. ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFF'S HUMAN RIGHTS CLAIMS ...............................1306
                      A. The Torture Claims (TVPA) ..............................................1312
                      B. Standing for Plaintiff B ...............................................1313
                      C. Legal Sufficiency of the Plaintiffs' Claims of Torture..................1313
                         1. Color of Law or Authority ...........................................1314
                         2. Acts Rising to the Level of Torture .................................1314
                            a. Subjected to Torture While Under the Actor's Custody or
                                Physical Control ................................................1314
                            b. Severe Pain or Suffering .........................................1314
                            c. Requisite Intent .................................................1318
                         3. Exhaustion of Local Remedies and Statutes of Limitations ............1319
                      D. Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (ATCA) ...........................1320
                      E. Arbitrary Detention (ATCA) .............................................1325
                         1. Doe v. Liu ..........................................................1326
                         2. Plaintiff A v. Xia ..................................................1327
                         3. Conclusion ..........................................................1328
                VIII. COMMANDER RESPONSIBILITY ..................................................1328
                  IX. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION ...............................................1334
                

Before this Court is a joint motion by the Plaintiffs of two related lawsuits asserting claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act and Torture Victim Protection Act. The Plaintiffs are practitioners and supporters of Falun Gong, a spiritual movement in the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "China" or "PRC"). The Plaintiffs in these two cases have moved for entry of default judgment against two Defendants — local governmental officials of China accused of violating their human rights. Plaintiffs' joint motion was heard on October 30, 2002. Extensive post-hearing briefs were submitted by the parties. On June 11, 2003, this Court issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this motion be GRANTED IN PART and that default judgment for declaratory relief entered as to certain claims and DENIED IN PART as to the remaining claims which should be dismissed.

The Plaintiffs filed objections with District Judge Wilken. During the pendency of the proceedings before Judge Wilken, the Supreme Court decided Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2739, 159 L.Ed.2d 718 (2004). Judge Wilken ordered further briefing in light of Sosa. She then referred the matter back to this Court for an amended Report and Recommendation addressing Sosa.

For the reasons stated herein, the Court concludes that its initial Report and Recommendation is entirely consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Sosa. As stated in its previous Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act and Torture Victim Protection Act are not barred by sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act because the alleged conduct cognizable in this suit were not validly authorized under Chinese law. However, justiciability concerns embodied in the act of state doctrine counsel against remedies other than declaratory relief. Those concerns are driven primarily by the potential impact these suits may have on foreign relations and the fact that the suits are brought against sitting officials and challenge current governmental policies. The Court also finds that as to the Plaintiffs' specific substantive claims, the Court should enter default judgment against Defendants for declaratory relief on certain claims. In particular, the Court recommends entry of judgment declaring that certain Plaintiffs were subject to torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and arbitrary detention in violation of the Alien Tort Claims Act and Torture Victim Protection Act. The Court finds that it would not be appropriate to adjudicate the claims relating to broad systemic conduct of the government. Other claims have not been established on the merits. The Court recommends the remaining claims be dismissed.

I. GENERAL BACKGROUND

Falun Gong is a spiritual practice that blends aspects of Taoism, Buddhism and the meditation techniques of qigong (a traditional martial art) with the teachings of Li Hongzhi, who was forced to leave China under threat of arrest in 1998. Liu Compl. ¶ 1. Falun Gong has followers in China and internationally. Id.

In July 1999, Chinese President Jiang Zemin and other high ranking officials issued statements declaring Falun Gong to be an illegal organization and orders initiating a widespread governmental crackdown against Falun Gong and its practitioners. Liu Compl. ¶ 30. In October 1999, the People's Congress, the Chinese national legislature, passed a series of laws outlawing "cults," defined to include Falun Gong. Id. As a result, according to ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
79 cases
  • Bowoto v. Chevton Corp.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • 30 Mayo 2008
    ...171. Other courts have also recognized an international norm prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. See Doe v. Liu Qi, 349 F.Supp.2d 1258, 1322 (N.D.Cal. 2004); Tachiona v. Mugabe, 216 F.Supp.2d 262, 281 (S.D.N.Y.2002); Jama v. I.N.S., 22 F.Supp.2d 353, 363 (D.N.J.1998); Xuncax......
  • John Roe I v. Bridgestone Corp.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of Indiana)
    • 26 Junio 2007
    ...rule that was sufficiently specific to reach his case, and so ordered dismissal. Id. at 738, 124 S.Ct. 2739; accord, Doe v. Qi, 349 F.Supp.2d 1258, 1278 (N.D.Cal.2004) ("The question of whether a claim under the ATCA lies thus turns on whether the specific facts (not the general characteriz......
  • Owens v. Republic of Sudan
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 29 Marzo 2005
    ...our foreign relations, and (iii) whether the government that perpetrated the challenged act is still in existence. See Doe v. Qi, 349 F.Supp.2d 1258, 1295 (N.D.Cal.2004) (citing Sabbatino, 376 U.S. at 427-28, 84 S.Ct. These factors weigh overwhelmingly in favor of rejecting the act of state......
  • Beaty v. Republic of Iraq
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 20 Marzo 2007
    ...merits might embarrass the United States government. See Liu v. Republic of China, 892 F.2d 1419, 1432 (9th Cir. 1989); Doe v. Qi, 349 F.Supp.2d 1258, 1290 (N.D.Cal.2004). But those situations are easily distinguishable from this case. Sabbatino itself is a poor analogue because, by the tim......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • A realist defense of the Alien Tort Statute.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 88 No. 5, July 2011
    • 1 Julio 2011
    ...million has been collected from three defendants). (24.) Hufbauer & Mitrokostas, supra note 4, at 122. (25.) See, e.g., Doe v. Qi, 349 F. Supp. 2d 1258, 1266 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (entering a default declaratory judgment against the mayor of Beijing on claims by Falun Gong adherents for tort......
  • The curious history of the Alien Tort Statute.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 89 No. 4, March - March 2014
    • 1 Marzo 2014
    ...on "Falun Gong" Unwarranted Lawsuits at 3, 5, attached to Notice of Filing of Original Statement by the Chinese Gov't, Doe v. Qi, 349 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (No. C-02-0672 (EMC)), available at http://www.asser.nl/upload/documents/DomCLIC/Docs/NLP/US/LiuQi_ (337) Qi, 349 F. Supp. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT