E.J.A.E. v. Doe Run Resources Corporation, The
4:19-cv-01581
E.D. Mo.Jun 5, 2019Background
- Plaintiffs: >1,600 Peruvian children allege lead poisoning from emissions of the La Oroya smelter owned/operated by U.S. corporate defendants through a Peruvian subsidiary; individual officers/directors are also sued.
- Defendants: U.S. companies and officers; seek dismissal based on international comity and ask the court to apply Peruvian law to the dispute (Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1 request).
- Procedural posture: Defendants raise identical comity and foreign-law arguments previously litigated in a companion consolidated case (A.O.A. v. Rennert) decided by Judge Perry; that companion decision is on appeal.
- District court judge (Sippel) adopts Judge Perry’s reasoning under issue preclusion and separately analyzes the merits: denies comity-based abstention and denies application of Peruvian law.
- Choice-of-law holdings: court rejects the internal-affairs doctrine, finds no substantive conflict between Missouri and Peruvian law for plaintiffs’ negligence, strict-liability, conspiracy, and contribution claims, and holds Missouri law governs under the most-significant-relationship test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants are precluded from relitigating comity and foreign-law issues | Companion decision controls; defendants already had full opportunity | Companion decision should not bind new plaintiffs | Issue preclusion applies; defendants barred from relitigating these issues |
| Whether international comity requires abstention/dismissal | Comity not warranted; U.S./Missouri interests permit suit | Dismissal warranted because adjudication would infringe Peruvian sovereignty and regulatory scheme | Comity abstention denied; no express Peruvian or U.S. sovereign interest necessitates dismissal |
| Whether Peruvian law should govern (internal affairs doctrine) | Missouri law governs; internal-affairs doctrine inapplicable | Internal affairs doctrine mandates Peruvian law because subsidiary incorporated in Peru | Internal affairs doctrine inapplicable; it concerns corporate governance and not the tort claims here |
| Whether Peruvian law conflicts with Missouri law so choice-of-law needed | No material conflict; if conflict, Missouri has most significant relationship | There is a material conflict favoring application of Peruvian law | No true conflict found; Missouri law applies; even if conflict existed, Missouri would be controlling under most-significant-relationship test |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (issue-preclusion principles in federal courts)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (definition of issue preclusion)
- Richards v. Jefferson County, 517 U.S. 793 (due-process limits on preclusion)
- Irving v. Dormire, 586 F.3d 645 (8th Cir.) (elements for issue preclusion)
- Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392 (court may raise preclusion sua sponte)
- Ungaro-Benages v. Dresdner Bank AG, 379 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir.) (prospective adjudicative comity discussion)
- Mujica v. Airscan, 771 F.3d 580 (9th Cir.) (comity abstention where foreign government requests dismissal)
- Jota v. Texaco, Inc., 157 F.3d 153 (2d Cir.) (U.S. courts may exercise jurisdiction over domestic corporations for harms abroad)
- Carijano v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 643 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir.) (home-state interest in providing forum for harms caused by its corporations)
- Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764 (no conflict when a party can comply with two states’ laws)