Jane Doe v. Drummond Company, Inc.
782 F.3d 576
11th Cir.2015Background
- Plaintiffs (Colombian citizens, heirs of victims) sued U.S. coal company Drummond, its Colombian subsidiary, and two corporate officers, alleging they funded and coordinated with AUC paramilitaries, causing extrajudicial killings in Colombia.
- Suits were brought under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), and Colombian wrongful-death law; discovery occurred and summary-judgment motions were filed.
- After the Supreme Court decided Kiobel, the district court dismissed the ATS claims as barred by the presumption against extraterritoriality; it also dismissed TVPA claims against corporate defendants (per Mohamad) and granted summary judgment for the individual officers.
- Plaintiffs moved to vacate judgments to seek limited U.S.-focused discovery or to amend to pursue diversity jurisdiction for Colombian wrongful-death claims; the district court denied relief and declined supplemental jurisdiction over Colombian claims.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: no ATS jurisdiction (Kiobel touch-and-concern standard not displaced), affirmed TVPA dismissals on the merits (insufficient evidence against individual officers), and affirmed refusal to exercise or revive supplemental jurisdiction over Colombian claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ATS jurisdiction exists post-Kiobel (do claims "touch and concern" U.S.) | Claims touch U.S. because defendants are U.S. corporations/citizens, AUC was a U.S.-designated terrorist org, and key decisions/funding occurred in U.S. | All relevant conduct occurred abroad; corporate presence and general U.S. decision-making do not displace Kiobel presumption | No ATS jurisdiction — plaintiffs’ U.S. contacts (citizenship, interests, decision-making) insufficient to displace presumption (followed Baloco II/Cardona) |
| Whether TVPA applies extraterritorially and supports plaintiffs' claims | TVPA reaches extraterritorial torture/extrajudicial killing and supports claims against individuals under secondary-liability theories | TVPA is limited or requires international-law-only standards; corporate defendants immune under Mohamad | TVPA does apply extraterritorially; but plaintiffs failed to produce admissible evidence to defeat summary judgment against the individual defendants; corporate TVPA claims barred by Mohamad |
| Proper substantive standards for TVPA liability theories (aiding-and-abetting, agency, command responsibility) | Domestic-law tort theories (aiding/abetting, agency, command responsibility) apply; mens rea for aiding-and-abetting is knowledge; command responsibility may reach civilians with effective control | District court relied on international-law standards and adopted an overly stringent mens rea (purpose) or rejected some theories | TVPA interpretation governed by statute/legislative history and U.S. common law; aiding-and-abetting requires knowing, substantial assistance (Cabello/Halberstam); command responsibility may apply to civilians if effective control is shown, but plaintiffs offered no evidence here |
| Whether district court abused discretion declining supplemental jurisdiction / denying Rule 60(b) relief to pursue Colombian wrongful-death claims | Plaintiffs asked reopening to amend for diversity and to pursue Colombian claims after Kiobel shifted viability of ATS claims | Defendants argued delay, prejudice, and that district court correctly declined jurisdiction over complex foreign-law claims | No abuse of discretion: court permissibly declined supplemental jurisdiction over complex Colombian-law issues and did not err denying Rule 60(b)(6) relief to reopen the case |
Key Cases Cited
- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) (ATS is jurisdictional and permits limited federal common-law claims for violations of the law of nations)
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013) (ATS subject to presumption against extraterritoriality; claims must "touch and concern" U.S. with sufficient force)
- Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, 566 U.S. 449 (2012) (TVPA does not authorize suit against corporations)
- Baloco ex rel. Tapia v. Drummond Co., 767 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2014) (after Kiobel, plaintiffs must allege a minimum factual predicate of U.S.-focused relevant conduct to displace the presumption)
- Cardona v. Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc., 760 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2014) (Kiobel applied; plaintiffs’ allegations did not show relevant conduct touching U.S. territory with force sufficient to displace presumption)
- Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Tech., Inc., 758 F.3d 516 (4th Cir. 2014) (fact-based Kiobel analysis; U.S. corporate citizenship, U.S.-based decisions, and other contacts can displace presumption)
- Mastafa v. Chevron Corp., 770 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2014) (focus on domestic contacts—specific domestic conduct aiding and abetting abroad can displace Kiobel presumption)
- Cabello v. Fernandez-Larios, 402 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir. 2005) (aiding-and-abetting under federal common law requires knowing, substantial assistance; precedent governs secondary liability under ATS/TVPA)
- Romero v. Drummond Co., 552 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2008) (recognizes extrajudicial killing as a cognizable international-law violation and discusses TVPA/ATS interplay)