Alien Tort Claims Act

• Pages: 126-127

Page 126

Dole Food Company, Inc. entered into an agreement with Société d'Etat pour le Développement de la Production des Fruitières et Légumes (Sodefel), an entity of the Ivory Coast government. It allegedly called for Sodefel, which owned and operated the plantations, to grow fruit according to Dole Food's specifications; these included the use of DBCP produced by Dow Chemical Company, Shell Oil Company or AMVAC Chemical Corporation (collectively Defendants).

Akebo Abagninin, and other African nationals who have worked on Ivory Coast plantations (Plaintiffs) sued the Defendants in a California federal court. Plaintiffs allege that exposure to DBCP caused male sterility and low sperm counts and that Defendant AMVAC had been aware of these risks since the 1950s. The Plaintiff s' alleged the Defendants' commission of genocide and Crimes against Humanity under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), 28 U.S.C. § 1350.2. Plaintiff s' also claimed racial discrimination and unlawful distribution of pesticides.

Defendant Dow Chemical, joined by AMVAC, moved for judgment on the pleadings. The district court then dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims for genocide and unlawful distribution of pesticides for failing to allege a violation of applicable norms of international law. The court determined that genocide required a specifi c intent to destroy a particular racial or other identifiable group of victims. The court rejected Plaintiff s' argument that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court required only knowledge of the eff ects of DBCP, because the statute did not constitute a norm of international law under ATCA. The district court dismissed the remaining claims for failure to allege a State or organizational policy to injure civilians.

Plaintiff s next filed an amended complaint alleging Crimes against Humanity and racial discrimination under the ATCA. Dow Chemical joined by AMVAC moved to dismiss. The district court found that Plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently allege a State or organizational policy to sterilize Plaintiffs and dismissed the case with prejudice.

When Plaintiff s appealed these rulings to the Ninth Circuit, it affirms. The Court finds that Plaintiff s failed to sufficiently allege violations of applicable norms of international law, either with regard to [1] the specifi c intent necessary to sustain a claim of genocide or [2] the presence of a State or organizational policy necessary to state a claim of Crimes against...