Bigio v. Coca-Cola Co.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5685
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- 1929: Raphael Nessim Bigio bought property in Heliopolis; Coca-Cola leased land and produced items for Coca-Cola; Bigio family operated businesses (R.N. Bigio & Co. and B. Bigio & Co.).
- 1960s: Egyptian government sequestered/nationalized Bigio property and related assets; ENBC formed from nationalized entities and operated on Bigio land.
- 1965: Bigio family expelled from Egypt; later attempts in Egyptian courts to enforce ministry decrees.
- 1994: ENBC privatized; Coca-Cola subsidiaries acquired 42% of ENBC and a Coca-Cola/MAC Beverages joint venture acquired 53%, creating Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Egypt (CCE).
- Since 1994 Coca-Cola has held ownership in CCE and profited from its operations; plaintiffs contend Coca-Cola knew of alleged taking and still engaged with ENBC/CCE.
- 1997-2010: District Court dismissed multiple claims; this court’s prior decisions Bigio I (2000) and Bigio II (2006) guide the analysis; the Amended Complaint alleges five counts but court finds no viable state claims against Coca-Cola.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Count One states a standalone unlawful taking claim. | Bigio asserts Count One is a distinct trespass/conversion-like claim. | Court found no separate unlawful-taking claim; the matter collapses into trespass/conversion analysis. | Count One not a separate claim; no pleading of unlawful taking. |
| Whether Counts Two and Three (trespass and conversion) state a claim against Defendants. | Plaintiffs allege continuity of wrongdoing by Coca-Cola/CCE post-1994. | Ownership of CCE by Defendants does not pierce corporate veil; no direct agency/tort liability. | No primary liability; no secondary liability without piercing veil; claims fail. |
| Whether Count Four (civil conspiracy) can lie given the alleged underlying torts. | Plaintiffs allege agreement and concerted action between Coca-Cola and CCE. | No facts showing an agreement or overt acts; insufficient for conspiracy. | Civil conspiracy claim fails. |
| Whether Count Five (unjust enrichment) is viable against Defendants. | Defendants' stock in CCE and profits from transactions with CCE unjustly enriched defendants at plaintiffs' expense. | Unjust enrichment requires defendant to be enriched at plaintiff's expense; here wraps around CCE, not Defendants directly. | Unjust enrichment claim fails absent piercing of corporate veil. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bigio v. Coca-Cola Co., 239 F.3d 440 (2d Cir. 2000) (reversed district court on subject-matter jurisdiction and local-action issues; discussed local vs non-local actions under the local-action doctrine)
- Bigio v. Coca-Cola Co., 448 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2006) (reversed on international comity/forum non conveniens and remanded for further proceedings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (requires plausible claims with non-conclusory factual allegations)
- Golonka v. Plaza at Latham LLC, 270 A.D.2d 667 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000) (trespass liability requires direct causation or authorization by defendant)
- Walls v. Moreland Altobelli Assocs., Inc., 290 Ga. App. 199 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (aiding and abetting trespass standards under Georgia law)