Georges v. United Nations
84 F. Supp. 3d 246
S.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Plaintiffs (Haitian or U.S. citizens) allege UN peacekeepers from Nepal introduced cholera into Haiti in 2010 by discharging untreated sewage, causing thousands of deaths and injuries.
- Defendants named: United Nations, MINUSTAH (UN mission in Haiti), Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, and Edmond Mulet (MINUSTAH head at relevant time).
- Plaintiffs contend the UN failed to provide a dispute-resolution mechanism (per CPIUN and the Haiti SOFA) for private-law claims arising from the outbreak.
- Plaintiffs could not effect personal service on the UN and moved for the Court to affirm service or permit alternative service; the United States filed a Statement of Interest asserting immunity for Defendants.
- The Court considered whether the UN/CPIUN and related treaties confer immunity on the UN, MINUSTAH, and UN officials and whether any breach of dispute-resolution obligations negates that immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the UN and MINUSTAH are immune from suit under the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (CPIUN) | CPIUN §29 requires the UN to provide modes of settlement; failure to do so forfeits immunity | CPIUN §2 grants absolute immunity absent an express waiver; no waiver here | UN and MINUSTAH are immune; suit dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether individual UN officials (Ban, Mulet) enjoy immunity | Officials can be liable for private-law claims arising from mission conduct | CPIUN and Vienna Convention grant diplomatic-type immunity to Secretary-General and Assistant Secretaries-General | Ban and Mulet are immune from civil suit; claims against them dismissed |
| Whether the Court may consider materials outside the complaint when resolving jurisdictional immunity | Plaintiffs rely on complaint allegations and procedural issues about service | Court may consider extrinsic evidence on jurisdiction but must accept complaint allegations as true | Court considered filings (including U.S. Statement) and resolved immunity question in Defendants' favor |
| Whether failure to effect personal service warrants relief on service or alternative service | Plaintiffs sought affirmation of service or extension for alternative service | Moot if case is dismissed on immunity grounds | Motion for alternative service denied as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Brzak v. United Nations, 597 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2010) (CPIUN grants UN absolute immunity absent an express waiver)
- Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2000) (court may consider evidence outside the pleadings on jurisdictional questions)
- Tachiona v. United States, 386 F.3d 205 (2d Cir. 2004) (treaty interpretation starts with text and context; may consult drafting history)
- Swarna v. Al-Awadi, 622 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2010) (Executive Branch's reasonable treaty interpretation merits deference)
- De Luca v. United Nations Org., 841 F. Supp. 531 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (dismissing suit against the UN on immunity grounds)