John Doe v. Nestle United States, Inc.
Decision Date | 19 December 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 10–56739.,10–56739. |
Citation | 738 F.3d 1048 |
Parties | John DOE I; John Doe II; John Doe III, individually and on behalf of proposed class members; Global Exchange, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. NESTLE USA, INC.; Archer Daniels Midland Company; Cargill Incorporated Company; Cargill Cocoa, Defendants–Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Terrence Patrick Collingsworth, Conrad & Scherer, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Paul Hoffman (argued), Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris Hoffman & Harrison, LLP, Venice, CA, for Plaintiffs–Appellants.
Craig A. Hoover and Christopher Todd Handman, Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, Washington, D.C.; Julie A. Shepard, Jenner & Block, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Jonathan H. Blavin and Kristin Linsley Myles, Munger Tolles & Olson, LLP, San Francisco, CA; Brad D. Brian and Daniel Paul Collins, Munger Tolles & Olson, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Andrew John Pincus (argued), Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, D.C.; Lee H. Rubin, Mayer Brown LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Defendants–Appellees.
Susan Hannah Farbstein, International Human Rights Clinic, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA, for Amici Curiae Professors of Legal History.
Marco Simons, Earthrights International, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Earthrights International.
Jennifer M. Green, Human Rights Litigation and International Advocacy Clinic, University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, MN, for Amici Curiae Nuremberg Scholars.
David J. Scheffer, Northwestern University School of Law, Bluhm Legal Clinic, Center for International Human Rights, Chicago, IL, for Amicus Curiae David J. Scheffer.
Peter Bowman Rutledge, Athens, GA, for Amici Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and The National Foreign Trade Council.
Meir Feder, Jones Day, New York, NY, for Amici Curiae National Association of Manufacturers and Professors of International and Foreign Relations Law and Federal Jurisdiction.
James Evan Berger and Charlene Sun, King & Spalding, LLP, New York, NY; Rebecca Kelder Myers, Vandenberg & Feliu LLP, New York, NY; Todd Tyler Williams, Paul Hastings LLP, New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae United States Council for International Business.
William Aceves, California Western School of Law, San Diego, CA, for Amici Curiae International Law Scholars.
Jonathan Massey, Massey & Gail LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae Nuremberg Historians and International Lawyers.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:05–CV–05133–SVW–JTL.
Before: D.W. NELSON, KIM McLANE WARDLAW, and JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-appellants appeal the district court's order dismissing their First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In light of intervening developments in the law, we conclude that corporations can face liability for claims brought under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1659, 1669, 185 L.Ed.2d 671 (2013) ( ); Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC, 671 F.3d 736, 761 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc) (, )vacated on other grounds,––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1995, 185 L.Ed.2d 863 (2013); Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 654 F.3d 11, 41 (D.C.Cir.2011) (same), vacated on other grounds,527 Fed.Appx. 7 (D.C.Cir.2013); Flomo v. Firestone Natural Rubber Co., 643 F.3d 1013, 1020–21 (7th Cir.2011) (same). Additionally, the district court erred in requiring plaintiff-appellants to allege specific intent in order to satisfy the applicable purpose mens rea standard. Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., 582 F.3d 244, 259 (2d Cir.2009).
Furthermore, we grant plaintiff-appellants leave to amend their complaint in light of recent authority regarding the extraterritorial reach of the Alien Tort Statute and the actus reus standard for aiding and abetting. Kiobel, 133 S.Ct. at 1669;Prosecutor v. Charles Ghankay Taylor, Case No. SCSL–03–01–A Judgment, at ¶ 475 (SCSL Sept. 26, 2013) (); Prosecutor v. Perisic, Case No. IT–04–81–A Judgment, at ¶ 36 & n. 97 (ICTY Feb. 28, 2013) ( ).
Accordingly, the order of the district court is hereby VACATED, and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order. This panel retains jurisdiction over any other appeals in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I concur in the Order with the exception of the discussion of the pleading requirements for aiding and abetting liability under international law. I am of the view that the Plaintiff must plead that the Defendants acted with specific intent to violate the norms of international law. See Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., 582 F.3d 244, 258 (2d Cir.2009) ( ); see also Aziz v. Alcolac, Inc., 658 F.3d 388, 400–01 (4th Cir.2011) () (citation and footnote reference omitted).
The district court Doe I v. Nestle, 748 F.Supp.2d 1057, 1083 (C.D.Cal.2010). The district court explained that it was “apply[ing] the dominant approach taken in the recent international appellate tribunal decisions ... requir[ing] that the aider and abettor must know or have reason to know of the relationship between his conduct and the wrongful acts.” Id. (citation omitted). The district court held:
In sum, the Court concludes that the core definition of aiding and abetting under international law requires the following. A person is legally responsible for aiding and abetting a principal's wrongful act when the aider and abettor (1) carries out acts that have a substantial effect on the perpetration of a specific crime,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
William v. AES Corp.
...this issue.Post-Kiobel, several courts have found that corporations may be held liable under the ATS. See Doe I v. Nestle USA, Inc., 738 F.3d 1048, 1049 (9th Cir.2013) ; In re South African Apartheid Litig., 5 F.Supp.3d 454, 461–65, No. 02 MDL 1499, 2014 WL 1569423, at *6–9 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1......
-
Chowdhury v. Worldtel Bangladesh Holding, Ltd.
...in its opinion, the Supreme Court established definitively the possibility of corporate liability under the ATS. Doe I v. Nestle USA, Inc., 738 F.3d 1048, 1049 (9th Cir.2013) (citing Kiobel, 133 S.Ct. at 1669). The relevance of the Supreme Court's reference to corporate presence for the dis......
-
Sikhs for Justice Inc. v. Indian Nat'l Cong. Party
...Kiobel II, has confirmed “that corporations can face liability for claims brought under the Alien Tort Statute.” Doe v. Nestle USA, Inc., 738 F.3d 1048, 1049 (9th Cir.2013).In addition, Kiobel I followed decades of established Second Circuit holdings that did not once even “hint” that such ......
-
Doe v. Cisco Sys., Inc.
...to satisfy the applicable purpose mens rea standard. Doe I v. Nestle, S.A., 748 F.Supp.2d 1057, 1087–88 (C.D.Cal.2010), vacated by 738 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir.2013). Defendants acknowledge this decision, but ask the Court to hold this case to await further guidance from the Ninth Circuit concern......
-
Human Rights After Kiobel: Choice of Law and the Rise of Transnational Tort Litigation
...2d. 10, 14 (D.D.C. 2013); Doe I v. Nestle, S.A., 748 F. Supp. 2d 1057, 1064 (C.D. Cal. 2010), vacated sub nom. Doe I v. Nestle USA, Inc., 738 F.3d 1048 (2013); In re Chiquita Brands Int'l, Inc., 690 F. Supp. 2d 1296, 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2010); Hoffman & Stephens, supra note 6, at 10. See genera......
-
The Judicial Philosophy of Chief Justice John Roberts: an Analysis Through the Eyes of International Law
...possess liability under international law. Several courts have already addressed the issue post Kiobel. E.g., Doe I v. Nestle USA, Inc., 738 F.3d 1048, 1049 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that "corporations can face liability for claims brought under the Alien Tort Statute" and noting that the Su......
-
The curious history of the Alien Tort Statute.
...(Kennedy, J., concurring); id. at 1669-71 (Alito, J., concurring); id. at 1671-78 (Breyer.J., concurring); see Doe 1 v. Nestle USA, Inc., 738 F.3d 1048, 1049 (9th Cir. 2013) (describing Kiobel as "suggesting in dicta that corporations may be liable under ATS so long as presumption against e......