Du Daobin v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
2 F. Supp. 3d 717
D. Maryland2014Background
- Chinese plaintiffs (Du, Zhou, Liu) allege Cisco and CEO John Chambers helped design and supply technology (the "Golden Shield") that the PRC used to monitor, detain, and torture dissidents; they brought ATS and state-law claims in Maryland.
- Plaintiffs allege Cisco developed/customized mirroring routers and surveillance systems in the U.S., trained Chinese officials, and proposed identity-linking systems accessible to CCP officials.
- Defendants moved to dismiss after the Supreme Court’s decisions in Kiobel and Mohamad; the motion raised personal jurisdiction, justiciability (political question and act-of-state), extraterritoriality, corporate liability under the ATS, and failure to plead requisite mens rea/actus reus for secondary liability.
- The court found no prima facie personal jurisdiction over Chambers (CEO) based on his individual contacts with Maryland.
- The court concluded the federal ATS claims against Cisco are nonjusticiable under the political question and act-of-state doctrines and, independently, that the complaint fails to plausibly plead purposeful aiding-and-abetting (actus reus and mens rea) under Fourth Circuit precedent.
- Federal claims were dismissed with prejudice; state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Chambers | Chambers’ CEO role and Cisco’s Maryland presence suffice for jurisdiction | Chambers lacks sufficient personal contacts with Maryland independent of CEO status | Dismissed: plaintiffs failed to make prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over Chambers |
| Justiciability – Political question | Courts can adjudicate ATS claims about exports and corporate conduct | Foreign-policy/export balance is for political branches; litigation would intrude and risk inconsistent pronouncements | Dismissed: political question implicated; court declines to adjudicate ATS claims |
| Justiciability – Act of State doctrine | Court can adjudicate corporate assistance to foreign-state abuses | Adjudication would require invalidating or judging PRC official acts within PRC territory | Dismissed: act-of-state bars adjudication of these claims |
| Extraterritorial reach of ATS | Cisco’s U.S.-based conduct (development, customization) brings claims within Kiobel exception | Kiobel presumes ATS claims are extraterritorial absent strong U.S. nexus | Assumed without deciding that extraterritoriality not dispositive; court avoided ruling on the broader question |
| Corporate liability under ATS | Corporations can be liable under the ATS | Supreme Court in Kiobel left question open; argue no corporate ATS jurisdiction | Court declined to decide corporate-immunity issue (dismissed on other grounds) |
| Mens rea/actus reus for secondary liability | Plaintiffs pleaded Cisco knowingly and purposefully assisted CCP abuses | Cisco’s technology is neutral; plaintiffs pleaded at most knowledge, not purpose; insufficient nexus and substantial effect | Dismissed: complaint fails to plausibly allege purposeful assistance or substantial effect as required by Aziz/Talisman |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013) (presumption against extraterritoriality applies to ATS claims)
- Sosa v. Alvarez‑Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) (ATS claims require caution and compatibility with foreign policy)
- Aziz v. Alcolac, Inc., 658 F.3d 388 (4th Cir. 2011) (Fourth Circuit adopts Talisman standard: aiding and abetting under ATS requires purposeful conduct)
- Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., 582 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2009) (defendant liable for aiding and abetting only if practical assistance had substantial effect and was given with purpose)
- Morrison v. Nat’l Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010) (test for extraterritorial application of U.S. statutes)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts due process standard for personal jurisdiction)
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (political question doctrine and its tests)
- Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964) (act-of-state doctrine principles)