Baloco Ex Rel. Tapia v. Drummond Co., Inc.
640 F.3d 1338
11th Cir.2011Background
- Children of three murdered Colombian union leaders sue Drummond entities for ATS/TVPA damages and Colombian wrongful death damages; district court dismissed for lack of standing and res judicata preclusion.
- District court held five of eight plaintiffs were precluded by res judicata based on a prior suit (Drummond I) involving similar claims against the same defendants.
- Court founders that standing exists under Article III and that the plaintiffs have a cognizable ATS claim and a viable TVPA wrongful-death claim.
- TVPA analysis: the statute allows wrongful-death claimants to sue; the Court looks to state law to determine who is a wrongful-death claimant, with Colombian law applying here for entitlement to sue.
- Court concludes that the Children adequately plead a TVPA claim and that they may be wrongful-death claimants under Colombian law; case is remanded for further factual development on res judicata in light of minority status in Drummond I.
- The opinion notes a vacatur and substitution of the prior Baloco v. Drummond Co. opinion to incorporate three modifications (clarifications on Rule 17(c)(2), Gerrard v. Larsen discussion, and state-law discussion).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the Children have constitutional standing and a viable ATS claim? | Children suffer injuries linked to defendants' conduct; injury traceable to defendants; relief likely. | District court found lack of standing and no ATS cognizable claim. | Yes; the Children have constitutional standing and plead a cognizable ATS claim. |
| Are the Children proper wrongful-death claimants under the TVPA? | TVPA allows any person who may be a claimant in a wrongful-death action to sue; Colombian law governs status. | Unclear whether the Children qualify as wrongful-death claimants under TVPA. | Yes; the Children are proper wrongful-death claimants, with state-law guidance supporting this status. |
| Does res judicata bar five of the eight children’s TVPA/ATS claims? | Minimum development shows lack of identity of parties; plaintiffs may not be barred. | Prior Drummond I litigation precludes claims as identical parties. | Preclusion issue is not resolved; remand for further factual development on the Children’s involvement in Drummond I. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (U.S. 2004) (ATS requires a narrow, defined international-law norm)
- Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc., 416 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2005) (TVPA creates broader relief and nonexclusive remedies)
- Cabello v. Fernandez-Larios, 402 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir. 2005) (TVPA/ATS damages in torture/extrajudicial killing cases; damages may be broader than wrongful-death norms)
- Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 552 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2008) (TVPA/state-action prerequisite and symbiotic government-private actor liability)
- Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2009) (TVPA/ATS standing distinctions; broader remedial context)