Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortplaintiffdefendantjurisdictionstatutemotion
tortplaintiffdefendantstatutemotion

Related Cases

Bangura v. Hansen
View Case »
Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. Biden
View Case »
Radmanesh v. Islamic Republic of Iran
View Case »
Filartiga v. Pena-Irala
View Case »
Fang v. Director, USCIS
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Forti v. Suarez-Mason

Facts

Plaintiffs are two Argentine citizens currently residing in the United States. Their initial complaint in this action alleged numerous causes of action against defendant, a former Argentine general, growing out of events which allegedly occurred in the mid to late 1970s during the Argentine military's so-called 'dirty war' against suspected subversion. The factual allegations of that complaint are detailed in this Court's October, 1987 Order. Plaintiffs predicated federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1350 (the 'Alien Tort Statute').

Plaintiffs are two Argentine citizens currently residing in the United States. Their initial complaint in this action alleged numerous causes of action against defendant, a former Argentine general, growing out of events which allegedly occurred in the mid to late 1970s during the Argentine military's so-called 'dirty war' against suspected subversion.

Issue

Did the plaintiffs establish a universal consensus regarding the tort of 'causing disappearance' and what constitutes 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment' under the Alien Tort Statute?

Did the plaintiffs establish a universal consensus regarding the tort of 'causing disappearance' and what constitutes 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment' under the Alien Tort Statute?

Rule

The Alien Tort Statute provides a cause of action for 'international torts,' which are characterized by universal consensus in the international community as to their binding status and their content.

The Alien Tort Statute provides a cause of action for 'international torts,' which are characterized by universal consensus in the international community as to their binding status and their content.

Analysis

The court found that the plaintiffs met their burden of showing an international consensus as to the status and content of the international tort of 'causing disappearance.' However, the court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish that there is any international consensus as to what conduct falls within the category of 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.' Absent such consensus, the claim was not actionable under the Alien Tort Statute.

The court found that the plaintiffs met their burden of showing an international consensus as to the status and content of the international tort of 'causing disappearance.' However, the court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish that there is any international consensus as to what conduct falls within the category of 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.'

Conclusion

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider regarding the claim of 'causing disappearance' and reinstated that claim. However, the court denied the motion as to the claim of 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.'

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider regarding the claim of 'causing disappearance' and reinstated that claim. However, the court denied the motion as to the claim of 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.'

Who won?

Plaintiffs prevailed in part, as their claim for 'causing disappearance' was reinstated due to the establishment of an international consensus on that tort.

Plaintiffs prevailed in part, as their claim for 'causing disappearance' was reinstated due to the establishment of an international consensus on that tort.

You must be