Liliana Maria Cardona v. Chiquita Brands International, Inc.
760 F.3d 1185
11th Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiffs, over 4,000 Colombians, sue Chiquita Brands and Chiquita Fresh North America for torture, personal injury, and death under ATS and TVPA.
- District court denied motions to dismiss; certified controlling questions under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) for interlocutory review.
- Supreme Court decisions Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority and Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum influenced analysis of TVPA and ATS applicability.
- Court determines it has no jurisdiction over the action and reverses district court, remanding for dismissal.
- Allegations involve coordination with Colombian paramilitary groups, with purported conduct largely outside U.S. territory.
- Overall holding: no jurisdiction in U.S. courts over these claims against corporate defendants for extraterritorial acts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TVPA claims can lie against corporations. | Plaintiffs argue TVPA applies to corporate conduct. | Chiquita argues TVPA liability is limited to natural persons following Mohamad. | TVPA claims dismissed; corporations cannot be liable. |
| Whether ATS claims are extraterritorial under Kiobel presumption. | ATS claims target conduct abroad but touch U.S. interests. | Kiobel presumes extraterritoriality does not apply absent strong US-touching factors. | ATS claims dismissed due to presumption against extraterritoriality. |
| Whether the case falls within any federal jurisdiction given Kiobel and Sosa guidance. | ATS jurisdiction should extend given conduct by U.S. corporation from U.S. offices. | No adequate connection to U.S. conduct to override presumption. | No jurisdiction; case dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013) (presumption against extraterritoriality applies to ATS unless strong domestic ties)
- Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, 132 S. Ct. 1702 (2012) (TVPA liability limited to natural persons)
- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) (private right of action under ATS generally not created by judiciary)
- Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980) (exemplary early ATS torts against individuals as violators of law of nations)
- Saleh v. Titan Corp., 580 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (private contractors’ abuse not actionable under ATS where not grounded in customary international law)
- Ali v. Rumsfeld, 649 F.3d 762 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (ATS limitations post-Sosa for non-state actors)
- Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (private capacity actions by officials not violating treaty or customary international law)
- Oetjen v. Cent. Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297 (1918) (foreign relations conduct not for courts to decide)
- Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Tech., Inc., 758 F.3d 516 (2014) (post-Kiobel considerations on touch and concern and US-based conduct)