Balintulo v. Daimler AG
727 F.3d 174
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Plaintiffs (Balintulo/Khulumani and Ntsebeza groups) sued dozens of multinational corporations (now reduced to Daimler, Ford, IBM) under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) for allegedly aiding-and-abetting South African apartheid abuses via their South African subsidiaries.
- Complaints allege subsidiaries sold vehicles, computers and services that facilitated segregation, detention, torture, extrajudicial killings, and other violations of customary international law during apartheid (1973–1994).
- District Court (S.D.N.Y.) denied defendants’ motions to dismiss, allowing vicarious/accessorial theories to proceed; defendants sought interlocutory review by certification, mandamus, or collateral-order appeal; the Second Circuit stayed district proceedings.
- The Supreme Court’s decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (2013) held that the ATS does not permit federal courts to recognize federal common-law causes of action for conduct occurring in the territory of another sovereign (i.e., extraterritorial conduct is barred under the ATS).
- On supplemental briefing, the Second Circuit panel held Kiobel plainly bars the plaintiffs’ ATS claims because all relevant conduct occurred abroad, denied the writ of mandamus as unnecessary, vacated the stay, and placed any collateral-order appeal in abeyance so defendants may move for judgment on the pleadings in district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of writ of mandamus to obtain immediate review of denial to dismiss | Mandamus unnecessary; normal appeal after final judgment sufficient | Mandamus appropriate due to foreign-policy stakes and alleged legal errors (corporate liability, extraterritoriality, accessorial liability) | Denied — mandamus unnecessary because Kiobel supplies an adequate, alternative path (motion for judgment on the pleadings) |
| Extraterritorial reach of ATS | ATS can cover extraterritorial conduct in cases touching and concerning the U.S.; corporate U.S. citizenship or U.S. interests displace presumption against extraterritoriality | ATS does not reach conduct occurring in the territory of another sovereign; Kiobel bars such claims | Held: Kiobel controls — ATS does not allow common-law causes of action for conduct occurring entirely abroad; plaintiffs’ claims barred |
| Corporate liability under ATS | (Plaintiffs) Parent-company liability/derivative liability permissible via agency/alter-ego or aiding-and-abetting theories | (Defendants) Corporate liability is limited or absent; and derivative liability cannot salvage extraterritorial claims | Court did not decide corporate-liability question on the merits; held unnecessary because Kiobel’s extraterritorial rule disposes of the case |
| Immediate appealability under collateral order doctrine | Plaintiffs contest that defendants’ foreign-policy/comity arguments are not equivalent to immunity and thus not immediately appealable | Defendants claim collateral-order jurisdiction because delay would imperil substantial public interests | Court reserved the collateral-order jurisdiction question and held the putative appeal in abeyance, permitting district court to rule first |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013) (Supreme Court holding ATS does not allow federal common-law causes of action for conduct occurring in foreign territory)
- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) (ATS permits courts to recognize limited federal common-law causes of action grounded in well‑established international norms)
- Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009) (collateral-order doctrine and standards for immediate appealability)
- Cheney v. U.S. District Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (2004) (standards and stringency for issuing writs of mandamus)
- Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010) (presumption against extraterritoriality and its application)
- Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980) (historical ATS use to vindicate international-law torts)
- Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., 582 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2009) (discussion of aiding-and-abetting mens rea and scope of customary international law)