774 F.3d 544
9th Cir.2014Background
- Colombian conflict context; US and Occidental funded the 18th Brigade to protect the Caño Limón pipeline.
- OxyCol (Occidental subsidiary) and Ecopetrol operated the Caño Limón pipeline and pipeline security program.
- US funding and training of Colombian forces, including the 18th Brigade, paralleled Occidental's support for security of the pipeline.
- May 2004 Inter-Institutional Cooperation Agreement gave operational control to Colombia's Ministry of National Defense, not Occidental.
- August 2004 killings of three union leaders by 18th Brigade linked to ongoing security operations; plaintiffs allege Occidental funded and controlled the Brigade.
- Plaintiffs filed suit in 2011 in California asserting Alien Tort Statute and California tort claims, dismissed as nonjusticiable political question; appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the suit presents a nonjusticiable political question. | Plaintiffs argue Occidental’s funding and control over the Brigade makes it liable. | Occidental contends the claims implicate foreign policy and national security decisions. | Yes; claims are nonjusticiable under political question doctrine. |
| Whether Occidental’s funding creates actionable agency or control claims. | Plaintiffs allege Occidental had operational control over the Brigade. | No plausible pleading shows Occidental had day-to-day control; US funding dominates. | Plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead actionable control; jurisdiction barred. |
| Whether the district court erred by not allowing discovery or amendment to plead political-question defenses. | Pls sought discovery/amendment to develop control theories. | Argument raised too late and discovery would not address political-question issue. | waived; court affirmed dismissal on political-question grounds. |
| Whether Corrie and Baker tests support dismissal on political-question grounds. | Plaintiffs rely on contractor liability theories. | Case law shows foreign-policy decisions foreclose judicial review. | Agree with district court; nonjusticiability grounded in Baker/Corrie framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (textual commitment or lack of judicially manageable standards in political questions)
- Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc., 503 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007) (foreign-aid policy decisions render suit nonjusticiable)
- Oetjen v. Cent. Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297 (1918) (foreign relations conduct reserved to executive/legislative branches)
- Alperin v. Vatican Bank, 410 F.3d 532 (9th Cir. 2005) (silence of State Dept. as neutral factor in foreign-relations suits)
- Koohi v. United States, 976 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1992) (on-the-ground operations vs. foreign-policy choices)
- Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548 (5th Cir. 2008) (contractor liability claims may be justiciable; not here)
- Bixby v. KBR, Inc., 748 F. Supp. 2d 1224 (D. Or. 2010) (on contractor liability vs. government policy decisions)