Xuncax v. Gramajo, Civ. A. No. 91-11564-DPW
| Decision Date | 12 April 1995 |
| Docket Number | 91-11612-DPW.,Civ. A. No. 91-11564-DPW |
| Citation | 886 F. Supp. 162 |
| Parties | Teresa XUNCAX, Juan Diego-Francisco, Juan Doe, Elizabet Pedro-Pascual, Margarita Francisco-Marcos, Francisco Manuel-Mendez, Juan Ruiz Gomez, Miguel Ruiz Gomez, and Jose Alfredo Callejas, Plaintiffs, v. Hector GRAMAJO, Defendant. Dianna ORTIZ, Plaintiff, v. Hector GRAMAJO, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Harvey Kaplan, Jeremiah Friedman, Kaplan, O'Sullivan & Friedeman, Boston, MA, Beth Stephens, Michael Ratner, Center for Constitutional Rights, New York City, for plaintiff Dianna Ortiz.
Harvey Kaplan, Jeremiah Friedman, Maureen O'Sullivan, Kaplan, O'Sullivan & Friedeman, Boston, MA, Beth Stephens, Michael
Ratner, Jose L. Morin, David Cole, Center for Constitutional Rights, New York City, James F. Smith, Michael R. Snedeker, Snedeker & Smith, Oakland, CA, Todd Howland, El Rescate Legal Services, Los Angeles, CA, Harold Hongju Koh, Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic, New Haven, CT, for plaintiffs in Civ.A. No. 91-11564-DPW.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 169
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................ 169
A. The Xuncax Complaint: Civil Action No. 91-11564 ............................ 169
1. The Plaintiffs' Ordeals ................................................ 169
a. Teresa Xuncax ...................................................... 169
b. Juan Diego-Francisco ............................................... 169
c. Juan Doe ........................................................... 170
d. Elizabet Pedro-Pascual ............................................. 170
e. Margarita Francisco-Marcos ......................................... 170
f. Francisco Manuel-Mendez ............................................ 170
g. Juan and Miguel Ruiz-Gomez ......................................... 171
h. Jose Alfredo Callejas .............................................. 171
2. The Defendant's Responsibility ......................................... 171
B. The Ortiz Complaint: Civil Action No. 91-11612 ............................. 173
1. The Plaintiff's Ordeal ................................................. 173
2. The Defendant's Responsibility ......................................... 174
III. DISCUSSION .................................................................... 175
A. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ........................................... 175
B. Independent Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Ortiz v. Gramajo
Civil Action No. 91-11612 ............................................. 176
1. Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 .................................. 176
2. Retroactivity .......................................................... 176
3. Plaintiff Ortiz's Claim Under TVPA ..................................... 178
C. Independent Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1350
in Xuncax et al. v. Gramajo, Civil Action No. 91-11564 ................... 178
1. The Scope of § 1350 ............................................... 179
a. The Filartiga Approach ............................................. 179
b. The Domestic Law Alternative Approach .............................. 181
c. Conclusion ......................................................... 183
2. Xuncax Plaintiffs' Claims of Violations of International Law ........... 184
a. Peremptory Norms of International Law .............................. 184
b. Claims on Behalf of Third Parties .................................. 189
c. Statute of Limitations and Venue ................................... 192
D. Independent Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ..... 193
E. Xuncax and Ortiz Plaintiffs' Municipal Tort Claims ......................... 194
1. Supplemental Jurisdiction .............................................. 194
2. Choice of Law .......................................................... 195
3. Defendant's Liability Under Guatemalan Law for Wrongful Death
Assault and Battery, False Imprisonment, and Intentional Infliction
of Emotional Distress ................................................ 196
4. Plaintiff Ortiz's Claim for Defamation ................................. 197
IV. ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES ......................................................... 197
A. Xuncax Plaintiffs' Claims Under International Law .......................... 197
B. Ortiz's Claims Under the TVPA .............................................. 198
1. Compensatory Damages ................................................... 198
2. Punitive Damages ....................................................... 199
C. Plaintiffs' Claims Under Guatemalan Municipal Law .......................... 200
1. Compensatory Damages ................................................... 200
2. Punitive Damages ....................................................... 201
D. Ortiz's Defamation Claim Under Kentucky Law ................................ 202
V. CONCLUSION .................................................................... 202
Nine expatriate citizens of Guatemala, as plaintiffs in Civil Action No. 91-11564, and Dianna Ortiz, a citizen of the United States, as plaintiff in Civil Action No. 91-11612, have brought separate actions against Hector Gramajo, formerly Guatemala's Minister of Defense. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages for devastating injuries they suffered from conduct of Guatemalan military forces. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant Gramajo bears personal responsibility for the numerous acts of gruesome violence inflicted by military personnel who were under his direct command.
The complaints were served upon the defendant while he was in this country attending Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. After filing a conclusory pro se answer, the defendant declined to participate further in these proceedings by refusing even to respond to court orders requiring him to furnish a current address for service. Default has been entered against the defendant pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a).
The facts alleged and adduced by the plaintiffs' affidavits stand uncontroverted in light of the default. Thomson v. Wooster, 114 U.S. 104, 5 S.Ct. 788, 29 L.Ed. 105 (1885); see also Pope v. United States, 323 U.S. 1, 12, 65 S.Ct. 16, 22, 89 L.Ed. 3 (1944). The questions presented are (1) whether this Court may render judgment against the defendant and (2) if so, what damage award constitutes a proper measure of the defendant's legal liability.
The several claims of the plaintiffs present complex jurisdictional and factual questions. Answering those questions has been made extraordinarily difficult because, while plaintiffs' contentions have been presented with exceptional skill by exceedingly competent counsel, defendant has offered no defense. After extended consideration necessary to explore — without adversarial assistance — the potential defenses available I have concluded that, with the exception of one of the plaintiffs in Civil Action No. 91-11564, this Court has jurisdiction to render judgment for substantial monetary damages.
Plaintiffs Teresa Xuncax, Juan Diego-Francisco, Juan Doe, Elizabet Pedro-Pascual, Margarita Francisco-Marcos, Francisco Manuel-Mendez, Juan Ruiz-Gomez, Miguel Ruiz-Gomez, Jose Alfredo Callejas the "Xuncax plaintiffs" are all natives of Guatemala; eight are Kanjobal Indians. All fled the country as a direct result of the abuses inflicted upon them or their family members. All were victimized by the Guatemalan military forces, who ransacked their villages and engaged in brutal and barbarous practices. Some of the plaintiffs were themselves subjected to torture and arbitrary detention; others were forced to watch as their family members were tortured to death or summarily executed; one plaintiffs father was caused to "disappear."
All of the plaintiffs assert that they have been exiled from their native country and, with record support, that they suffer from severe psychological disorders and disturbances due to the brutal nature of the traumas inflicted upon them. They bring suit to recover compensatory and punitive damages for their various claims against the defendant under international law, United States law, and municipal tort laws. Briefly stated, the respective allegations are as follows:1
a. Teresa Xuncax: On July 18, 1982, soldiers broke into Xuncax's house, stripped, bound and masked her husband, who had spent time working in the United States. They beat him and kicked him, dragged him outside and walked him naked through the village with other captured Kanjobal men. Xuncax took her children that afternoon and fled on foot to Mexico. That evening, the soldiers executed Xuncax's husband. For the next three years, Xuncax and her children lived in refugee camps in Mexico. Settled now in Sacramento, California, Xuncax is afraid to return to Guatemala and has applied for political asylum.
b. Juan Diego-Francisco: On July 6, 1982, upon Diego-Francisco's return from work in the United States, 300 soldiers entered his village, broke into his house, grabbed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heinrich v. Sweet
...by the Plaintiffs recognizes a general private right of action under international law. Neither Filartiga, nor Xuncax v. Gramajo, 886 F.Supp. 162 (D.Mass.1995) (Woodlock, J.), support the Plaintiffs' contention because they merely apply international law as a standard under the Alien Tort A......
-
Maria v. McElroy
...van Dijk & G.J.H. van Hoof, Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights 235-37 (1990) (quoted in Xuncax v. Gramajo, 886 F.Supp. 162, 188 (D.Mass.1995)). Article 13 of the ICCPR requires that an alien lawfully residing in a territory "be allowed to submit the reasons again......
-
Bieregu v. Ashroft
...section 1350 only for a tort committed in violation of a United States treaty, not for any violation of a treaty. Xuncax v. Gramajo, 886 F.Supp. 162, 181 (D.Mass.1995). 131 F.Supp.2d at 1026-27. The court further noted that Jogi had failed to allege any damages, a necessary element of any t......
-
Estate of Alvarez v. Johns Hopkins Univ.
...1116, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating that another federal statute did not preempt all ATS wrongful death claims); Xuncax v. Gramajo, 886 F.Supp. 162, 191–92 (D. Mass. 1995) (holding that, under Guatemalan law, the deceased's sibling had standing to assert a cause of action under ATS for the ......
-
Human Rights After Kiobel: Choice of Law and the Rise of Transnational Tort Litigation
...sometimes referred to as the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) or the Alien Tort Act (ATA).4. Id. at 1669.5. Id.6. See Xuncax v. Gramajo, 886 F. Supp. 162, 183 (D. Mass. 1995) (explaining that municipal tort law is an inadequate placeholder for the kinds of wrongs meant to be addressed by the AT......
-
A realist defense of the Alien Tort Statute.
...violated customary international law and gave rise to subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts under ATS); Xuncax v. Gramajo, 886 F. Supp. 162, 187-89 (D. Mass. 1995) (concluding that the Guatemalan military's tactics of torture, summary execution, "disappearance," and arbitrary de......
-
The Judicial Philosophy of Chief Justice John Roberts: an Analysis Through the Eyes of International Law
...crimes, genocide, torture, and other atrocities committed by a Bosnian Serb leader were actionable under the ATS); Xuncax v. Gramajo, 886 F. Supp. 162, 162-63 (D. Mass. 1995) (deeming torture, summary execution, "disappearance," and arbitrary detention by Guatemalan military to be actionabl......
-
The curious history of the Alien Tort Statute.
...(default judgment); Mushikiwabo v. Barayagwiza, No. 94 Civ. 3627, 1996 WL 164496 (S.D.N.Y. April 9, 1996) (same); Xuncax v. Gramajo, 886 F. Supp. 162, 202 (D. Mass. 1995) (same); Paul v. Avril, 901 F. Supp. 330, 336 (S.D. Fla. 1994) (116) See, e.g., Hilao, 103 F.3d at 772; Kadic v. Karadzic......