Joan Jara v. Pedro Pablo Barrientos Nunez, 878 F.3d 1268

In 1973 Víctor Jara was detained, tortured, and extrajudicially killed in Chile by soldiers under Lt. Pedro Pablo Barrientos Núñez’s command.
Barrientos moved to the United States in 1989 and became a U.S. citizen in 2010; he has lived and worked in the U.S. since then.
In 2013 Jara’s family sued Barrientos in federal court alleging torture, extrajudicial killing, arbitrary detention, cruel/inhuman treatment, and crimes against humanity.
Plaintiffs asserted common-law claims invoking jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and statutory claims under the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA); the district court dismissed the ATS-based claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction but the TVPA claims proceeded to a $28M jury verdict.
The Eleventh Circuit considered whether Kiobel’s presumption against extraterritoriality forecloses ATS jurisdiction when all relevant conduct occurred abroad and whether the appeal was moot given the TVPA verdict.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of ATS claims	Jara family: not moot because ATS covers distinct common-law claims (e.g., crimes against humanity) that the TVPA vindication did not necessarily resolve	Amicus/defendant: verdict on TVPA claims renders ATS claims moot	Not moot — crime-against-humanity claim is distinct and preserves a concrete interest
ATS extraterritoriality / subject-matter jurisdiction	Jara family: Barrientos’s U.S. residency/citizenship and U.S. policy interests (no safe harbor) support exercising ATS jurisdiction	Defendant: All relevant tortious conduct occurred in Chile; Kiobel presumption bars extraterritorial ATS jurisdiction absent sufficient domestic conduct	ATS jurisdiction barred — no relevant conduct in the U.S.; citizenship/residency and policy concerns cannot overcome Kiobel
Remand for fact-intensive inquiry / amendment	Jara family: court should remand for factual development or allow amendment to show domestic conduct	Defendant/amicus: amendment would be futile because alleged conduct is exclusively foreign	Denied — amendment would be futile; no prospect to allege necessary U.S.-focused conduct

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (establishes ATS presumption against extraterritoriality; claim must "touch and concern" U.S. with sufficient force)
Doe v. Drummond Co., Inc., 782 F.3d 576 (11th Cir.) (requires "enough relevant conduct" in U.S. to displace Kiobel presumption; citizenship/residency insufficient)
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (ATS provides jurisdiction only for a narrow set of international-law violations recognized at common law)
Cabello v. Fernández-Larios, 402 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir.) (crimes against humanity require a widespread or systematic attack on a civilian population)
Baloco v. Drummond Co., 767 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir.) (declines remand/amendment where plaintiffs cannot allege U.S.-focused conduct sufficient to overcome Kiobel)
Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc., 416 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir.) (discusses scope of actionable international-law norms under the ATS)
Cardona v. Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc., 760 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir.) (applies Kiobel and Doe to foreclose ATS jurisdiction over certain foreign conduct)
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (discusses mootness and when a case remains live)