In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, MDL 381.

Citation373 F.Supp.2d 7
Decision Date28 March 2005
Docket NumberNo. MDL 381.,No. 04-CV-400.,MDL 381.,04-CV-400.
PartiesIn re "AGENT ORANGE" PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION. The Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin; Phan Thi Phi Phi; Nguyen Van Quy and Vu Thi Loan, Individually and as Parents and Natural Guardians of Nguyen Quang Trung and Nguyen Thi Thuy Nga, Their Children; Duong Quynh Hoa, Individually and as Administratix of the Estate of Her Deceased Child, Huynh Trung Son; Ho Kan Hai, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Nguyen Van Hoang, Her Child; Ho Thi Le, Individually and as Administratix of the Estate of Her Deceased Husband, Ho Xuan Bat; Nguyen Muoi; Nguyen Dinh Thanh; Dang Thi Hong Nhut; Nguyen Thi Thu, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Nguyen Son Linh And Nguyen Son Tra, Her Children; Vo Thanh Hai, Nguyen Thi Hoa, Individually and as Parents and Natural Guardians of Vo Thanh Tuan Anh, Their Child; Le Thi Vinh; Nguyen Thi Nham; Nguyen Minh Chau; Nguyen Thi Thoi; Nguyen Long Van; Tong Thi Tu and Nguyen Thang Loi; On Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Dow Chemical Company; Monsanto Company; Monsanto Chemical Company; Pharmacia Corporation; Hercules Incorporated; Occidental Chemical Corporation; Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corporation; Maxus Energy Corporation; Thompson Hayward Chemical Company; Harcros Chemicals Inc.; Uniroyal, Inc; Uniroyal Chemical, Inc.; Uniroyal Chemical Holding Company; Uniroyal Chemical Acquisition Corporation; C.D.U. Holding, Inc.; Diamond Shamrock Agricultural Chemicals, Inc.; Diamond Shamrock Chemicals; Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Company; Diamond Shamrock Corporation; Diamond Shamrock Refining and Marketing Company; Occidental Electrochemicals Corporation; Diamond Alkali Company; Ansul, Incorporated; Hooker Chemical Corporation; Hooker Chemical Far East Corporation; Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp.; Hoffman-Taff Chemicals, Inc. Chemical Land Holdings, Inc.; T-H Agriculture & Nutrition Company, Inc.; Thompson Chemical Corporation; Riverdale Chemical Company; Elementis Chemicals Inc.; United States Rubber Company, Inc.; Syntex Agribusiness Inc.; Syntex Laboratories, Inc. and "ABC Chemical Companies 1-100," Defendants.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)

Constantine P. Kokkoris, Esq., by Constantine P. Kokkoris, Esq., Moore & Goodman, LLP, by Jonathan C. Moore, Esq., William H. Goodman, Esq., David Milton, Esq., New York, NY, Law Offices of Kathleen A. Melez, by Kathleen A. Melez, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, Cartee & Morris, LLC, by Jonathan W. Cartee, Esq., R. Stan Morris, Esq., Shelby Roden LLC, by Robert B. Roden, Esq., Davis & Norris, LLP, by Frank Davis, Esq., John E. Norris, Esq., Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiffs.

Rivkin Radler LLP, by Steven Brock, Esq., James V. Aiosa, Esq., Uniondale, NY, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, by James L. Stengel, Esq., Laurie Strauch Weiss, Esq., Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw

LLP, by Andrew Frey, Esq., New York, NY, for Defendant The Dow Chemical Company.

King & Spalding LLP, by Michael M. Gordon, Esq., New York, NY, for Defendants Occidental Chemical Corporation, as successor by merger to Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Company; Maxus Energy Corporation; Tierra Solutions, Inc., formerly known as Chemical Land Holdings, Inc.; and Valero Energy Corporation, as successor by merger to Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corporation.

Seyfarth Shaw LLP, by John C. Sabetta, Esq., New York, NY, Latham & Watkins LLP, by James E. Tyrrell, Esq., Newark, NJ, Latham & Watkins LLP, by Richard P. Bress, Esq., Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, by Joseph R. Guerra, Esq., Washington, DC, for Defendants Monsanto Company and Monsanto Chemical Company.

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, by William A. Krohley, Esq., William C. Heck, Esq., New York, NY, for Defendant Hercules Incorporated.

Myron Kalish, Esq., New York, NY, for Defendants Uniroyal, Inc.; Uniroyal Chemical Holding Company; Uniroyal Chemical Acquisition Corporation; Uniroyal Chemical Co.; and CDU Holding, Inc.

Clark, Gagliardi & Miller, P.C., by Lawrence T. D'Aloise, Esq., White Plains, NY, for Defendants T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co., Inc.; Thompson-Hayward Chemical Co.; and Harcros Chemicals Inc.

Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, by Anne E. Cohen, Esq., Anthea E. Roberts, Esq., New York, NY, for Defendants Hooker Chemical Corporation; Hooker Chemical Far East Corporation; and Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp.

McDermott Will & Emery, by Chryssa V. Valletta, Esq., New York, NY, McDermott Will & Emery, by Steven H. Hoeft, Esq., Chicago, IL, for Defendant Riverdale Chemical Company.

U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, by Daniel Meron, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Joseph H. Hunt, Branch Director, Vincent M. Garvey, Deputy Branch Director, Ori Lev, Esq., Washington, DC, Roslynn Mauskopf, United States Attorney, by Roslynn Mauskopf, United States Attorney, Kathleen Mahoney, Assistant United States Attorney, Brooklyn, NY, for the United States.

Center for Constitutional Rights, by Judith Brown Chomsky, Esq., Jennifer Green, Esq., Beth Stephens, Esq., New York, NY, Earthrights International, by Rick Herz, Esq., Tyler Giannini, Esq., Washington, DC, International Human Rights Law Clinic, University of Virginia School of Law, by Professor Deena Hurwitz, Esq., Charlottesville, VA, for Amici Curiae.

AMENDED MEMORANDUM, ORDER and JUDGMENT

WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge.

                Table of Contents
                   I.  Introduction .....................................................................15
                       A.  Domestic Law Tort Claims Defeated by Government Contractor
                             Defense ....................................................................15
                       B.  International Law Claims .....................................................17
                           1.  General Approach of United States Courts .................................17
                           2.  Government Contractor Defense Not Applicable .............................18
                           3.  Substantive Merit Lacking ................................................19
                
                  II.  Use of Agent Orange and Other Herbicides in Vietnam War...........................19
                 III.  Prior Phases of Agent Orange Litigation ..........................................23
                  IV.  Pleadings by Vietnamese Plaintiffs and Motions by Defendants......................27
                       A.  Pleadings by Plaintiffs ......................................................27
                           1.  Jurisdiction and Venue ...................................................27
                           2.  Parties ..................................................................28
                           3.  Spraying Herbicides in Vietnam ...........................................30
                           4.  Herbicides Used ..........................................................30
                           5.  Supply of Herbicides by Defendants .......................................31
                           6.  Harm to Plaintiffs .......................................................32
                           7.  Legal Basis for Claims ...................................................35
                           8.  Theories .................................................................36
                               a.  War Crimes ...........................................................36
                               b.  Genocide .............................................................36
                               c.  Crimes Against Humanity ..............................................37
                               d.  Torture ..............................................................37
                               e.  Assault and Battery ..................................................37
                               f.  Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress .........................37
                               g.  Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress ...........................37
                               h.  Negligence ...........................................................38
                               i.  Wrongful Death .......................................................38
                               j.  Strict Products Liability ............................................38
                               k.  Public Nuisance ......................................................38
                               l.  Unjust Enrichment ....................................................38
                               m.  Injunctive and Declaratory Relief ....................................38
                       B.  Motions by Defendants ........................................................38
                           1.  Motions under Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 56 ..................................38
                           2.  Law Applicable to Motions ................................................39
                               a.  Rule 56 ..............................................................39
                               b.  Rule 12(b)(6) ........................................................39
                           3.  Context ..................................................................40
                           4.  Different Treatment of Veteran and Vietnamese Plaintiffs .................41
                   V.  Position of the Government Opposing Plaintiffs' Claims ...........................43
                  VI.  Insufficiency of Plaintiffs' Domestic Law and Equitable Claims ...................44
                 VII.  Application of Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain ...........................................46
                VIII.  Legal Concepts ...................................................................49
                       A.  Standing of VAVAO ............................................................49
                       B.  Right to Sue Individually ....................................................51
                       C.  Liability of Corporations for Violation of International Law .................52
                           1.  Aiding and Abetting ......................................................52
                           2.  Corporate Culpability ....................................................54
                       D.  Statutes of Limitations
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • 28 Junio 2005
    ... . 381 F.Supp.2d 1164 . Luis Alberto Galvis MUJICA, et ... now opposes the pursuit of the instant litigation since it would severely impact this country's ...liability for: .         (a) Any individual who, ... See In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, 373 ......
  • John Doe I v. Nestle
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • 8 Septiembre 2010
    ...... is committed to delivering the best in product quality and service at every stage.’ ” (FAC ..., “the ATS was meant to underwrite litigation of a narrow set of common law actions derived ... international law extends the scope of liability for a violation of a given norm to the ... See, e.g., In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litig., 373 F.Supp.2d ...Occidental Petroleum Corp., 381 F.Supp.2d 1164, 1179 n. 13 (C.D.Cal.2005) ......
  • Cross v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., Docket Nos. 06-4800-cv, 06-4876-cv.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 17 Septiembre 2010
    ...... ATS has given rise to an abundance of litigation in U.S. district courts. For the first fifteen ... culture long accustomed to imposing liability on corporations may, at first blush, assume that ... for a new and lethal use as an asphyxiating agent in the gas chambers at Auschwitz. Id. at ...Assoc. for Victims of Agent Orange v. Dow Chem. Co., 517 F.3d 104 (2d Cir.2008); ...Occidental Petroleum Corp., 381 F.Supp.2d 1164, 1176 (C.D.Cal.2005) (holding that ......
  • Almog v. Arab Bank, Plc, 04-CV-5564(NG)(VVP).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 29 Enero 2007
    ...... as predicate crimes giving rise to liability under the ATA. See Arab Bank I, 384 F.Supp.2d ...of an agent of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (the ... quotation marks omitted)); In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 373 F.Supp.2d 7, 136 ...Both sides to this litigation note that the Palestinian Authority has ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Equator Principles: the private financial sector's attempt at environmental responsibility.
    • United States
    • Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law Vol. 40 No. 1, January 2007
    • 1 Enero 2007
    ...in the eighteenth century and therefore the ATS provides for this cause of action). (179.) In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 373 F. Supp. 2d 7 (E.D.N.Y. 2005); see also Diskin, supra note 178, at 828; Pell & Horsch, supra note (180.) Diskin, supra note 178, at 815-16. (181.) See Ki......

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