V.P.A.C. v. Doe Run Resources Corporation, The, 4:19-cv-01671

Plaintiffs: >1,600 Peruvian children allege lead poisoning from emissions of the La Oroya smelting complex operated by Peruvian subsidiary of U.S. corporate defendants; individual defendants are company officers/directors.
Defendants: U.S. corporations who owned/operated the Peruvian smelter; seek dismissal based on international comity and request a Rule 44.1 determination that Peruvian law governs.
Procedural posture: Defendants raised identical comity and foreign-law arguments in a companion consolidated case (A.O.A. v. Rennert) decided by Judge Perry; that decision is on appeal.
Judge Sippel adopted Judge Perry’s prior rulings under issue preclusion and denied relitigation of the comity and foreign-law questions.
On the merits (if not precluded), the court also denied dismissal for international comity, finding Missouri has a stronger interest and no persuasive Peruvian sovereign request for dismissal.
Choice-of-law: court held Peruvian law does not materially conflict with Missouri law; even under the most-significant-relationship test Missouri law governs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether issue preclusion bars defendants from relitigating comity/foreign-law rulings	Plaintiffs: prior companion ruling precludes re-litigation	Defendants: companion ruling does not bind this case / issues remain open	Held: Issue preclusion applies; defendants barred from relitigating those issues
Whether international comity requires dismissal/abstention	Plaintiffs: comity not warranted; U.S./Missouri interests support suit	Defendants: Peru’s sovereignty and interests counsel dismissal	Held: Denied; no clear Peruvian sovereign demand, Missouri’s interest outweighs Peru’s
Whether Peruvian law (including internal affairs doctrine) governs substantive claims	Plaintiffs: Missouri law should apply; no true conflict	Defendants: internal affairs doctrine and Peruvian law control	Held: Internal affairs doctrine inapplicable; no material conflict; Missouri law applies
Whether Rule 44.1 foreign-law determination mandates applying Peruvian law	Plaintiffs: defendants failed to prove a controlling conflict or applicable foreign law	Defendants: presented Peruvian-law experts and government letters	Held: Defendants failed to establish foreign law controlling; apply Missouri law

Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (preclusive effect of federal judgments)
New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (collateral estoppel definition)
Richards v. Jefferson County, 517 U.S. 793 (due process limits on preclusion)
Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127 (issue preclusion requires matters actually and necessarily decided)
Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392 (court may raise preclusion sua sponte)
Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. U.S. Dist. Court, 482 U.S. 522 (need to analyze foreign sovereign interests)
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764 (no conflict where compliance with both laws possible)
Jota v. Texaco, Inc., 157 F.3d 153 (U.S. corporation subject to jurisdiction even when harm abroad)
Carijano v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 643 F.3d 1216 (home forum interest in regulating corporate citizens)
In re Air Crash Disaster Near Chicago, Ill., 644 F.2d 594 (forum connections and choice-of-law factors)