Estate of Rodriquez v. Drummond Co., Inc., CV-02-BE-0665-W.
| Decision Date | 14 April 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-02-BE-0665-W.,CV-02-BE-0665-W. |
| Citation | 256 F.Supp.2d 1250 |
| Parties | THE ESTATE OF VALMORE LACARNO RODRIQUEZ, the Estate of Victor Hugo Orcasita Amaya, the Estate of Gustavo Soler Mora, and Sintramienergetica, Plaintiffs, v. DRUMMOND COMPANY, INC., Drummond Ltd, and Garry N. Drummond, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
Daniel M Kovalik, United Steelworkers of America, Pittsburgh, PA, Richard P Rouco, Whatley Drake LLC, Birmingham, Terry Collingsworth, Natacha Thys, International Labor Rights Fund, Washington, DC, for Valmore Lacarno Rodriquez, The Estate of, adding by amd complaint (doc # 25), John Doe I, as relative and heir of the deceased; and Jane Doe I, on behalf of herself as the wife and heir of deceased, and on behalf of their minor child, Victor Hugo Orcasita Amaya, The Estate of, adding by amd complaint (doc # 25), Jane Doe II, as a relative and heir of deceased, Gustavo Soler Mora, The Estate of, adding by amd complaint (doc # 25), Jane Doe III, as a relative and heir, Sintramienergetica, plaintiffs.
William Anthony Davis, III, W Stancil Starnes, Philip G Piggott, Starnes & Atchison LLP, Birmingham, William H Jeffress, Jr, Herbert J Miller, Mark T Stancil, Baker Botts LLP, Washington, DC, for Drummond Company, Inc, Drummond Ltd, Garry N Drummond, defendants.
This case is before the court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. 14); Defendants' Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Doc. 30); Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 8(a) (Doc. 33); and Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Proceed Anonymously (Doc. 34). The court held a hearing on the above motions on September 17, 2002. As a preliminary matter, the court notes that defense counsel conceded at the hearing that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) was moot. In addition, the court denied Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 8(a) (Doc. 33) after finding that Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint met the general pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the court does not address Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) or Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 8(a) (Doc. 33) in this Memorandum Opinion.
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are relatives and heirs of Valmore Locarno Rodriquez ("Locarno"), Victor Hugo Orcasita Amaya ("Orcasita"), and Gustavo Soler Mora ("Soler"), as well as the trade union SINTRAMIENERGETICA ("union"), of which the decedents were members. Pl. First Am. Compl. at 2. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and damages against Defendants Drummond Company, Inc., Drummond Ltd, and Gary N. Drummond for their alleged role in the death of Locarno, Orcasita, and Soler. Locarno, Orcasita, and Soler were trade union leaders for SINTRAMIENERGETICA and represented workers at Defendant Drummond, Ltd.'s mines in Columbia. Id. at 2. Specifically, plaintiffs assert claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, the Torture Victim Protection Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, as well as state law claims for wrongful death and aiding and abetting. Id. at 28-38.
Defendant Drummond, Ltd. is an Alabama company that manages the daily operations of Drummond Co. coal operations in Columbia. Id. at 9. Drummond, Ltd. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Drummond Company, Inc., an Alabama corporation. Id. Defendant Garry N. Drummond is the Chief Executive Officer of Drummond Company, Inc. and a resident of Alabama. Id. at 10.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants are jointly and severally liable for the death of Locarno, Orcasita, and Soler by paramilitaries of the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia ("AUC") because the paramilitaries were acting as defendants' agents. Id. at 11. As evidence of this agency relationship, plaintiffs allege that defendants allowed AUC paramilitaries to enter their mining facilities in Colombia because the paramilitaries are "in a cooperative and symbiotic relationship with the regular [Colombian] military that are stationed on Drummond's property." Id. at 20. In addition, plaintiffs allege that the paramilitaries that actually killed Locarno and Orcasita stated that "they were there to settle a dispute that Locarno and Orcasita had with Drummond." Id. at 21. At the time of their death, Locarno and Orcasita were in the midst of contract negotiations on behalf of Drummond employees with Drummond, Ltd. Id. at 24.
Soler assumed the position of President of SINTRAMIENERGETICA Mowing the deaths of Locarno and Orcasita. Id. at 25. Like Locarno and Orcasita, Soler was removed from a bus on his way home from a Drummond mine and was killed by paramilitaries of the AUC. Id. at 26. At the time of his death, Soler was actively engaged in negotiations with Drummond for new security agreements for the mine workers. Id. at 25.
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on March 14, 2002, alleging claims on behalf of the Estate of Valmore Locarno Rodriquez, the Estate of Victor Hugo Orcasita Amaya, the Estate of Gustavo Soler Mora, and SINTRAMIENERGETICA. On May 30, 2002, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (Doc. 14), arguing that the plaintiffs lacked capacity and standing to maintain this action. On June 28, 2002, plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint alleging claims on behalf of "John Doe I, as a relative and heir of the deceased, Valmore Locarno Rodriquez; Jane Doe I, on behalf of herself as the wife and heir of the deceased, Valmore Locarno Rodriquez and on behalf of their minor child; Jane Doe II, as a relative and heir of the deceased, Victor Hugo Orcasita Amaya; Jane Doe III, as a relative and heir of Gustavo Soler Mora; and SINTRAMIENERGETICA." Plaintiffs' filing of their First Amended Complaint rendered Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. 14) moot.
However, prior to filing their First Amended Complaint, plaintiffs did not seek leave of court to proceed anonymously. Notwithstanding plaintiffs' procedural error, defendants filed a joint Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint on August, 2, 2002 (Doc. 30). In addition, defendants filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 8(a) (Doc. 33) on August 5, 2002. After defendants' motions notified plaintiffs of their failure to seek leave to proceed anonymously, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed Anonymously (Doc. 34) on August 9, 2002. The court held a hearing on all pending motions on September 17, 2002.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a defendant may move for dismissal of a claim that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Eleventh Circuit has clearly articulated the standard of review for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss:
"The standard of review for a motion to dismiss is the same for the appellate court as it is for the trial court." Stephens v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 901 F.2d 1571, 1573 (11 th Cir. 1990). A motion to dismiss is only granted when the movant demonstrates "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957).
Harper v. Blockbuster Etnm't Corp., 139 F.3d 1385, 1387 (11th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1000, 119 S.Ct. 509, 142 L.Ed.2d 422 (1998). "On a motion to dismiss, the facts stated in appellant's complaint and all reasonable inferences are taken as true." Stephens, 901 F.2d at 1573. Accordingly, the court accepts the facts stated in Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint as true for the purpose of this motion.
In their First Amended Complaint, plaintiffs assert the following claims: (1) The Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, for extrajudicial killing on behalf of all plaintiffs against all defendants; (2) The Torture Victim Protection Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, for extrajudicial killing on behalf of all plaintiffs against all defendants; (3) The Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, for denial of fundamental rights to associate and organize on behalf of all plaintiffs against all defendants; (4) Wrongful Death on behalf of all plaintiffs against all defendants; and (5) Aiding and Abetting on behalf of all plaintiffs against all defendants.
In their Joint Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (Doc. 30), defendants assert that plaintiffs complaint is due to be dismissed for the following reasons: (1) because plaintiffs failed to obtain leave to proceed anonymously, this court lacks jurisdiction over the unnamed plaintiffs; (2) plaintiff SINTRAMIENERGETICA lacks standing and capacity to maintain any claims against defendants; (3) the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; (4) this court lacks jurisdiction over this controversy under the political question doctrine; and (5) this court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over the claims asserted by SINTRAMIENERGETICA under the doctrine of international comity.2
Defendants' primary argument at the hearing was that the individual plaintiffs' failure to receive leave to proceed anonymously divests this court of jurisdiction over the unnamed parties. Defendants argue that absent court permission to proceed using pseudonyms, "the federal court lacks jurisdiction over the unnamed parties, as a case has not been commenced with respect to them." W.N.J, v. Yocom, 257 F.3d 1171, 1172 (10th Cir.2001) (quoting National Commodity & Barter Ass'n v. Gibbs, 886 F.2d 1240, 1245 (10th Cir.1989)). Defendants further argue that plaintiffs' failure to receive leave to proceed pseudonymously cannot be cured retroactively. See W.N.J, v. Yocom, 257 F.3d at 1172 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.
...purposes of the TVPA, Freeport cannot be held liable under the TVPA." See Motion at 6. However, both Estate of Rodriquez v. Drummond Co., Inc., 256 F.Supp.2d 1250, 1266-67 (N.D.Ala.2003), and Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 256 F.Supp.2d 1345, 1358-59 (S.D.Fla.2003), held that corporations a......
-
Sarei v. Rio Tinto, Plc
...reveals that "those making allegations against the government could suffer'serious reprisals'"); Estate of Rodriguez v. Drummond Co., Inc., 256 F.Supp.2d 1250, 1267-68 (N.D.Ala.2003) (holding that the TVPA does not require exhaustion of local remedies when plaintiffs would be at risk of ret......
-
Villeda Aldana v. Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc.
...that the right to associate is actionable under the ATCA, it must depart from its reasoning on this issue. Estate of Lacarno Rodriquez v. Drummond, 256 F.Supp.2d 1250 (N.D.Ala.2003) (relying on ILO Conventions 87 and 88 and ICCPR Article 22 in "reluctantly" finding that right to associate a......
-
John Doe I v. Nestle
...v. Coca–Cola Co., 256 F.Supp.2d 1345, 1358–59 (S.D.Fla.2003) (reaching contrary conclusion); Estate of Rodriquez v. Drummond Co., Inc., 256 F.Supp.2d 1250, 1266–67 (N.D.Ala.2003) (same) The central animating logic behind these decisions is that the Act prohibits individuals from inflicting ......
-
Corporate Liability For Human Rights Abuses Goes On Trial
...re. is clear that multinational employers should seek to avoid utilizing the services of entities or regimes with records of human rights violations. It is much less clear to what extent, if any, a corporation may be held liable for human rights abuses committed by associated entities or regimes.......
-
Jessica Priselac, the Requirement of State Action in Alien Tort Statute Claims: Does Sosa Matter?
...2004); Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3293, at *8-9 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); Estate of Rodriquez v. Drummond Co., 256 F. Supp. 2d 1250, 1264-65 (N.D. Ala. 2003); Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., 244 F. Supp. 2d 289, 328 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). 109 See, e.g.,......