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

tortplaintiffdefendantjurisdictionliabilitypleamotionwillinternational law
tortplaintiffdefendantjurisdictionliabilitypleamotionwillinternational law

Related Cases

Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Olaguez-Garcia v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Eche v. Holder
View Case »
Thongphilack v. Gonzales
View Case »
Kim v. U.S.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Khulumani v. Barclay Nat. Bank Ltd.

Facts

The plaintiffs in this action bring claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1350 ('ATCA'), against approximately fifty corporate defendants and hundreds of 'corporate Does.' The plaintiffs argue that these defendants actively and willingly collaborated with the government of South Africa in maintaining a repressive, racially based system known as 'apartheid,' which restricted the majority black African population in all areas of life while providing benefits for the minority white population. Three groups of plaintiffs filed ten separate actions in multiple federal district courts asserting these apartheid-related claims.

The plaintiffs in this action bring claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1350 ('ATCA'), against approximately fifty corporate defendants and hundreds of 'corporate Does.' The plaintiffs argue that these defendants actively and willingly collaborated with the government of South Africa in maintaining a repressive, racially based system known as 'apartheid,' which restricted the majority black African population in all areas of life while providing benefits for the minority white population. Three groups of plaintiffs filed ten separate actions in multiple federal district courts asserting these apartheid-related claims.

Issue

Whether the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act and whether aiding and abetting violations of customary international law can provide a basis for ATCA jurisdiction.

Whether the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act and whether aiding and abetting violations of customary international law can provide a basis for ATCA jurisdiction.

Rule

A plaintiff may plead a theory of aiding and abetting liability under the ATCA, and the determination of whether a norm is sufficiently definite to support a cause of action involves judgment about the practical consequences of making that cause available to litigants in federal courts.

A plaintiff may plead a theory of aiding and abetting liability under the ATCA, and the determination of whether a norm is sufficiently definite to support a cause of action involves judgment about the practical consequences of making that cause available to litigants in federal courts.

Analysis

The appellate court found that the district court erred in holding that aiding and abetting violations of customary international law could not provide a basis for ATCA jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged claims that could potentially establish jurisdiction under the ATCA, and thus the dismissal of these claims was vacated. The court also noted that the district court's denial of the motion to amend was based on an erroneous premise regarding subject matter jurisdiction.

The appellate court found that the district court erred in holding that aiding and abetting violations of customary international law could not provide a basis for ATCA jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged claims that could potentially establish jurisdiction under the ATCA, and thus the dismissal of these claims was vacated. The court also noted that the district court's denial of the motion to amend was based on an erroneous premise regarding subject matter jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The orders dismissing the ATCA claims and denying the representatives' motions to amend were vacated. The remaining orders were affirmed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

The orders dismissing the ATCA claims and denying the representatives' motions to amend were vacated. The remaining orders were affirmed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Who won?

The plaintiffs prevailed in part as the appellate court vacated the dismissal of their ATCA claims, allowing them to proceed with their case.

The plaintiffs prevailed in part as the appellate court vacated the dismissal of their ATCA claims, allowing them to proceed with their case.

You must be