Jane Doe v. Drummond Company, Inc
2:09-cv-01041
| N.D. Ala. | Jul 25, 2013Background
- Plaintiffs (survivors/relatives of Colombians killed) sued Drummond Ltd. (DLTD) and Drummond Company, Inc. (DCI) under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and the Torture Victims Protection Act (TVPA), alleging the companies funded and conspired with Colombian AUC paramilitaries to commit extrajudicial killings and war crimes.
- Litigation history: complaint filed 2009; multiple amendments; Eleventh Circuit decision in Baloco affected standing; Third Amended Complaint is operative. Defendants moved for summary judgment.
- After the Supreme Court's Kiobel decision narrowing extraterritorial reach of the ATS, the court ordered supplemental briefing on Kiobel’s effect.
- Plaintiffs relied on testimony and declarations claiming U.S.-based decisions (CEO meetings in Alabama, cash shipments, Adkins’s trips) caused or enabled the overseas torts.
- The court found much of Plaintiffs’ proffered evidence inadmissible for summary judgment (hearsay, unavailable witnesses, declarations not reducible to trial testimony) and what admissible evidence remained did not show sufficient U.S. conduct to displace the presumption against extraterritoriality.
- Court grants summary judgment to DLTD and DCI: ATS claims dismissed for extraterritoriality reasons; TVPA claims dismissed because TVPA authorizes suits only against natural persons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ATS claims survive Kiobel's presumption against extraterritoriality | Drummond's alleged U.S.-based decisions and substantial conduct (CEO approvals, Adkins’s trips, payments routed from Alabama) "touch and concern" the U.S. with sufficient force to displace the presumption | Kiobel bars ATS suits where the law-of-nations violations occurred abroad absent a clear domestic focus; ATS contains no clear extraterritorial statement | Court: Plaintiffs failed to show sufficient admissible U.S. conduct; ATS claims dismissed under Kiobel presumption |
| Admissibility of key testimonial evidence at summary judgment | Plaintiff relies on depositions and declarations from Colombian witnesses to prove U.S. decision-making and payments | Defendants challenge hearsay, unavailability for trial, and inability to reduce out-of-court statements to admissible form | Court: Many statements inadmissible (hearsay/unavailable witnesses); those admissible do not establish decision-making in U.S. sufficient to defeat summary judgment |
| TVPA liability against corporations | Plaintiffs assert TVPA claim for extrajudicial killings against corporate defendants | Defendants argue TVPA does not permit suits against corporations | Court: Mohamad controls—TVPA permits suits only against natural persons; corporate TVPA claims dismissed |
| Whether to stay pending related Eleventh Circuit decision (In re Chiquita) | Plaintiffs do not oppose a short stay for judicial economy | Defendants oppose a stay; neither party formally moved for a stay | Court: Declines stay; issues resolved on the record; proceeds to enter judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013) (ATS subject to the presumption against extraterritoriality; claims must "touch and concern" the U.S. with sufficient force to displace that presumption)
- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) (ATS leaves a narrow cause of action for certain international-law violations but courts are "vigilant doorkeepers")
- Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010) (extraterritoriality analysis focuses on the statute's object; domestic contacts must be sufficiently central to displace the presumption)
- Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, 132 S. Ct. 1702 (2012) (TVPA permits liability only against natural persons)
- Baloco v. Drummond Co., 631 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2011) (individuals may bring wrongful-death claims under the ATS and TVPA)