Federal Court Tosses Wrongful Death Claims Under Torture Victims Protection Act and Alien Tort Claims Act
An Alabama federal court recently held that the Torture Victims Protection Act does not authorize wrongful death claimants to bring suit for their own damages, but instead merely authorizes them to sue for the torture victim’s own injury. In Baloco v. Drummond Co., Case No. 7:09-CV-00557-RDP, Slip op. (N.D. Ala. Nov. 9, 2009) (subscription to AmLaw Daily may be required to see opinion), the children of alleged torture victims sued Drummond Company for wrongful death damages that they had suffered as a result of their fathers’ murders in Columbia, which allegedly were committed by Colombian paramilitary organizations at the behest of the defendant to prevent union organizing.
Previously, wives and family members had brought suit against Drummond under the Alien Tort Claims Act, the TVPA, and Columbian common law for the injuries suffered by their murdered family members, which suit had resulted in summary judgment for Drummond on the wrongful death claims and a jury verdict for Drummond on the ATCA claim for allegedly aiding and abetting the murders. Slip op. at 3.
In analyzing the motion to dismiss, Judge David Proctor first had to decide whether the claims of these plaintiffs were barred by the res judicata effect of the earlier judgment. In addition to a final judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, res judicata requires that the parties in the two actions be identical, or at least in privity. It also requires that the same cause of action be involved in both cases. Analyzing the pleadings in the first action, Judge Proctor determined that many of the plaintiffs before him had also been plaintiffs in the first action and asserted the same claim. Judge Proctor considered their argument that res judicata should not apply to them because they had learned new facts since the first action that supported their claim. But the court distinguished between new factual developments that occur that may justify not applying res judicata, and the mere discovery of new evidence that existed at the time of the first action, which does not.
Nevertheless, there were three plaintiffs who could not be eliminated on res judicata grounds at the pleading stage, and so the court moved on to consider the question of their standing to bring their claims. The TVPA provides a federal cause of action for torture and extrajudicial killing. The claim may be brought by the victim or on his behalf by his legal representative or one who would be a claimant in an action for wrongful death. Plaintiffs argued that this allowed them to sue for their own wrongful death damages. The court concluded, however, that the TVPA does not allow recovery for injuries except those suffered by the torture victim himself; the mention of wrongful death in the statute defines who may bring the claim, but does not alter the fact that the claim is for the victim’s damages, not those of his family. Slip op. at 13-16. Accordingly, the court held that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue under the TVPA.
Plaintiffs also asserted claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act. But the ATCA provides no guidance on the issue of standing. Judge Proctor reasoned that “[i]n the case of the [ATCA], several courts, including the Eleventh Circuit, have referenced the TVPA as the most analogous statute.” Id. at 16. The court thus held that because the plaintiffs lack standing under the TVPA, they lack standing under the ATCA as well.
Finally, in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Columbian common law claims, the court noted that the issues of Columbian law were so complex that it would be impossible for the court to navigate them.
