Bauman et al v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation

Filing 1

COMPLAINT summos issuend and yes to jury demand against DaimlerChrysler Corporation (Filing fee $ 150.). Filed by Mirta Haydee Arenas, Jose Barreiro, Barbara Bauman, Alejandro Daer, Eduardo Estiville, Graciela Gigena, Guillermo Alberto Gigena, Nuria Gigena, Gregory Grieco, Richardo Martin Hoffman, Elba Leichner, Alfedo Manuel Martin, Juan Jose Martin, Gabriele Nunez, Josefina Nunez, Miriam Nunez, Silvia Nunez, Eduardo Olasiregui, Emilio Guillermo Pesce, Hector Ratto, Amelia Schiaffo, Anunciacion Spaltro De Belmonte. (lrd, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2004) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/11/2004 (bw, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP MARK A. CHAVEZ (Bar No. 90858) KIM E. CARD (Bar No. 147779) 42 Miller Avenue Mill Valley, California 94941 Telephone: (415) 381-5599 Facsimile: (415) 381-5572 kim@chavezgertler.com 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 INTERNATIONAL LABOR RIGHTS FUND TERRY COLLINGSWORTH 733 15th Street, N.W., Suite 920 Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: (202) 347-4100 Facsimile: (202) 347-4885 DANIEL M. KOVALIK Five Gateway Center, Rm. 807 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 Telephone: (412) 521-2826 Facsimile: (412) 562-2574 Attorneys for Plaintiffs BARBARA BAUMAN, et al. 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BARBARA BAUMAN, on behalf of herself ) and as heir of her son, OSCAR ALBERTO ) ) ALVAREZ BAUMAN; GREGORY GRIECO, on behalf of himself and as heir of ) his brother MIGUEL GRIECO; JOSEFINA ) NUNEZ, on behalf of herself and as heir of ) her husband, DIEGO NUNEZ; GABRIELE ) ) NUNEZ, MIRIAM NUNEZ and SILVIA ) NUNEZ, on behalf of themselves and as ) heirs of their father, DIEGO NUNEZ; EMILIO GUILLERMO PESCE, on behalf ) ) of himself and as heir of his brother, ) ESTEBAN A. REIMBER; MIRTA ) HAYDEE ARENAS, on behalf of herself ) and as heir of her brother , ALBERTO ) FRANCISCO ARENAS; GRACIELA GIGENA, on behalf of herself and as heir of ) ) her husband, ALBERTO GIGENA; ) GUILLERMO ALBERTO GIGENA and NURIA GIGENA, on behalf of themselves ) ) and as heirs of their father, ALBERTO GIGENA; AMELIA SCHIAFFO, on behalf ) ) of herself and as heir of her husband ) FERNANDO OMAR DEL CONNTE; ELBA LEICHNER, on behalf of herself and ) Case No.: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF FOR: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Extra-Judicial Killing Torture Crimes Against Humanity Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment Violation of California’s Wrongful Death Statute Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL COMPLAINT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ) as heir of her son JORGE LEICHNER; ) ANUNCIACION SPALTRO DE ) BELMONTE, on behalf of herself and as heir of her husband HECTOR BELMONTE; ) ) HECTOR RATTO; EDUARDO ) OLASIREGUI; RICHARDO MARTIN ) HOFFMAN; EDUARDO ESTIVILLE, ) ALFREDO MANUEL MARTIN; JUAN ) JOSE MARTIN; JOSE BARREIRO; and ) ALEJANDRO DAER, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, ) ) and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, ) ) Defendant. ) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT 1 2 I. NATURE OF ACTION This case involves the forced disappearance and presumed murders of Oscar Alberto 3 Alvarez Bauman, Miguel Grieco, Diego Nuñez, Estaban A. Reimer, Alberto Francisco Arenas, 4 Alberto Gigena, Fernando Omar del Connte, Jorge Leichner and Hector Belmonte -- all 5 workers and trade unionists at the Mercedes Benz Argentina (“MBA”) plant in Gonzalez- 6 Catan, Argentina. The disappearances of these individuals were carried out by state security 7 forces acting under the direction of and in collaboration with MBA -- now known as 8 DaimlerChrysler Argentina (“DCA”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant 9 DaimlerChrysler Corporation. Close relatives of these disappeared individuals bring this 10 action on behalf of themselves for the injuries, including pain and suffering, they have endured 11 as a result of these disappearances, and as heirs of the disappeared. This case also involves the 12 kidnapping, detention and torture of Plaintiffs Hector Ratto, Eduardo Olasiregui, Ricardo 13 Martin Hoffman, Eduardo Estivill, Alfredo Manuel Martin, Juan Jose Martin, Jose Barreiro 14 and Alejandro Daer -- workers and trade unionists at the same MBA plant. The kidnapping, 15 detention and torture of these Plaintiffs were carried out by state security forces acting under 16 the direction of and with material assistance from MBA. 17 2. The disappearance and presumed extra-judicial killings of the aforementioned 18 missing individuals as well as the kidnapping, detention and torture of the aforesaid Plaintiffs 19 were committed in contravention of the law of nations, and as such, are actionable under the 20 Alien Tort Claims Act (“ATCA”), 28 U.S.C. §1350 and the Torture Victims Protection Act 21 (“TVPA”), 28 U.S.C. §1350, Note. Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendant 22 DaimlerChrysler Corporation (“DaimlerChrysler”) which so dominates and controls DCA, the 23 successor-in-interest of MBA, that the two companies are in fact alter egos. High-ranking 24 employees/officials of MBA, including Director of Legal Affairs Ruben Pablo Cueva, Human 25 Resources Director Pedro de Elias and Director of Production Juan Tasselkraut conspired with, 26 directed and aided and abetted state security forces in carrying out the human rights violations 27 alleged herein. 28 1 COMPLAINT 1 II. PARTIES 2 Category I Plaintiffs 3 3. Plaintiff Barbara Bauman is a citizen and permanent resident of Argentina. She 4 is the mother and surviving heir of Oscar Alberto Alvarez Bauman. Oscar Alberto Alvarez 5 Bauman had been an employee of MBA and was an independent union activist. He was 6 disappeared along with his wife Monica on August 4, 1977. Plaintiff Barbara Bauman sues on 7 behalf of herself for the injuries, including pain and suffering, she has endured as a result of 8 the loss of her son. She also brings this action on behalf of her son, as his heir, for the injuries 9 he suffered as a result of his kidnapping, torture, disappearance and presumed murder. 10 4. Gregorio Grieco is a citizen and permanent resident of Argentina. He is the 11 brother and surviving heir of Miguel Grieco. Miguel Grieco had been an employee of MBA 12 and an independent union activist. He was disappeared by state security forces on December 13 14, 1976. Gregorio Grieco sues on behalf of himself for the injuries, including pain and 14 suffering, he has endured as a result of the loss of his brother. He also brings this action on 15 behalf of his brother, Miguel Grieco, as the latter’s heir, for the injuries the latter suffered as a 16 result of his kidnapping, torture, disappearance and presumed murder. 17 5. Josefina Nuñez is a citizen and permanent resident of Argentina. She is the 18 surviving wife of Diego Nuñez, an MBA employee who was disappeared by state security 19 forces on August 13, 1977. Josefina Nuñez sues on behalf of herself for the injuries, including 20 pain and suffering, she has endured as a result of the loss of her husband. She also brings this 21 action on behalf of her husband, Diego Nuñez, as the latter’s heir, for the injuries the latter 22 suffered as a result of his kidnapping, torture, disappearance and presumed murder. 23 6. Gabriele Nuñez, Miriam Nuñez and Silvia Nuñez are citizens and permanent 24 residents of Argentina. They are surviving daughters of Diego Nuñez, who was disappeared 25 on August 13, 1977. They sue on behalf of themselves, individually, for the injuries, including 26 pain and suffering, they have endured as a result of the loss of their father. In addition, they 27 bring this action on behalf of their father, Diego Nuñez, as the latter’s heir, for the injuries he 28 suffered as a result of his kidnapping, torture, disappearance and presumed murder. 2 COMPLAINT 1 7. Emilio Guillermo Pesce is a citizen and permanent resident of Argentina. He is 2 the surviving brother of Esteban A. Reimer, an MBA employee who was disappeared by state 3 security forces on January 5, 1977. He sues on behalf of himself for the injuries, including 4 pain and suffering, that he has endured as a result of the loss of his brother. He also brings this 5 action on behalf of his brother, Esteban A. Reimer, as the latter’s heir, for the injuries he 6 suffered as a result of his kidnapping, torture, disappearance and presumed murder. 7 8. Mirta Haydee Arenas is a citizen and permanent resident of Argentina. She is 8 the surviving sister of Alberto Francisco Arenas who was disappeared by state security forces 9 on August 19, 1977. She sues on behalf of herself for the injuries, including pain and 10 suffering, that she has endured as a result of the loss of her brother. She also brings this action 11 on behalf of her brother, Alberto Francisco Arenas, as the latter’s heir, for the injuries he 12 suffered as a result of his kidnapping, torture, disappearance and presumed murder. 13 9. Graciela Gigena is a citizen and permanent resident of Argentina. She is the 14 surviving wife of Alberto Gigena who was disappeared by state security forces on August 13, 15 1977. She sues on behalf of herself for the injuries, including pain and suffering, that she has 16 endured as a result of the loss of her husband. She also brings this action on behalf of her 17 husband, Alberto Gigena, as the latter’s heir, for the injuries he suffered as a result of his 18 kidnapping, torture, disappearance and presumed murder. 19 10. Guillermo Alberto Gigena and Nuria Gigena are citizens and permanent 20 residents of Argentina. They are the children of Alberto Gigena who was disappeared by state 21 security forces on August 13, 1977. They bring this case on behalf of themselves for the 22 injuries, including pain and suffering, that they endured as result of the loss of their father. 23 They also bring this action on behalf of Alberto Gigena, as the latter’s heir, for the injuries he 24 suffered as a result of his kidnapping, torture, disappearance and presumed murder. 25 11. Amelia Schiaffo is a citizen and permanent resident of Argentina. She is the 26 surviving wife of Fernando Omar Del Connte who was disappeared on August 12, 1977. She 27 brings this action on behalf of herself for the injuries, including pain and suffering, that she 28 endured as a result of the loss of her husband. She also brings this case on behalf of Fernando 3 COMPLAINT 1 Omar Del Connte, as the latter’s heir, for the injuries he suffered as a result of his kidnapping, 2 torture, disappearance and presumed murder. 3 12. Elba Leichner is a citizen of Chile and a permanent resident of Argentina. She 4 is the mother of Jorge Leichner who was disappeared on August 14, 1977. She brings this 5 action on behalf of herself for the injuries, including pain and suffering, that she endured as a 6 result of the loss of her son. She also brings this case on behalf of Jorge Leichner, as the 7 latter’s heir, for the injuries he suffered as a result of his kidnapping, torture, disappearance 8 and presumed murder. 9 13. Anunciacion Spaltro de Belmonte is a citizen and permanent resident of 10 Argentina. She is the wife of Hector Belmonte, an MBA employee and union activist who 11 was disappeared on August 13, 1977. She brings this action on behalf of herself for the 12 injuries, including pain and suffering, that she endured as a result of the loss of her husband. 13 She also brings this case on behalf of Hector Belmonte, as the latter’s heir, for the injuries he 14 suffered as a result of his kidnapping, torture, disappearance and presumed murder. Category II Plaintiffs 15 16 14. Alfredo Manuel Martin is a citizen and permanent resident of Argentina. 17 Alfredo Martin was kidnapped, detained and tortured on December 14, 1976 by state security 18 forces and Ruben Lavallen, a police station Chief. Alfredo Martin brings this action on behalf 19 of himself for the damages he suffered as a result of his kidnapping, detention and torture. 20 15. Hector Ratto is a citizen and permanent resident of Argentina. On August 12, 21 1977, Hector Ratto was detained by security forces at the MBA plant in Gonzalez Catan and 22 brought by these forces to an army barracks in Campo de Mayo and then transferred soon 23 thereafter to a police station where he was summarily and arbitrarily imprisoned for 24 approximately eighteen months. During his time in captivity, Hector Ratto was subject to 25 extreme forms of torture, including electroshocking. Hector Ratto brings this case on behalf of 26 himself for the damages he suffered as a result of his arbitrary detention and torture. 27 28 16. Juan Jose Martin is a citizen and permanent resident of Argentina. Juan Jose Martin was kidnapped in the Gonzalez-Catan factory of MBA on April 29, 1976, and brought 4 COMPLAINT 1 to the police precinct in San Justo where he was detained and tortured for 19 days. Juan Jose 2 Martin brings this case on behalf of himself for the damages he suffered as a result of his 3 kidnapping, arbitrary detention and torture. 4 17. Ricardo Martin Hoffmann is a citizen and permanent resident of Argentina. 5 Ricardo Martin Hoffman was forced to go into exile in Italy in 1977 after his house was 6 ransacked by security forces and he discovered that these same forces were intent upon 7 arresting him at the Gonzalez-Caton plant just as they had apprehended fellow independent 8 unionist Alfredo Martin. Ricardo Martin Hoffman brings this case on behalf of himself for the 9 damages he suffered as a result of his forced exile. 10 18. Eduardo Estivill is a citizen and permanent resident of Argentina. Eduardo 11 Estivill was forced to go into exile in Europe in 1977 after his house was searched by police 12 forces who were directed to his home by MBA and who were intent upon apprehending Mr. 13 Estivill. Eduardo Estivill brings this case on behalf of himself for the damages he suffered as a 14 result of his forced exile. 15 19. Jose Barreiro is a citizen and permanent resident of Argentina. Jose Barreiro 16 went into hiding and internal exile in 1977 after his house was raided at night by police intent 17 upon apprehending him. Jose Barreiro brings this case on behalf of himself for the damages he 18 suffered as a result of his forced exile. 19 20. Alejandro Daer is a citizen and permanent resident of Argentina. In August of 20 1977, Mr. Daer was forced into exile in Brazil after police searched his home, detained 21 members of his family and attempted to kidnap him. Alejandro Daer brings this case on behalf 22 of himself for the damages he suffered as a result of his forced exile. 23 21. Eduardo Olasiregui is a citizen and permanent resident of Argentina. Mr. 24 Olasiregui was wrongfully arrested and imprisoned for two and a half years as a result of the 25 false and malicious accusations of MBA. He was later pardoned. Mr. Olasiregui brings this 26 case on behalf of himself for the damages he suffered as result of his wrongful and arbitrary 27 imprisonment. 28 5 COMPLAINT Defendant 1 2 22. Defendant DaimlerChrysler does significant business in the State of California 3 and maintains one of its chief, North American offices, known as the DaimlerChrysler 4 Research and Technology Center North America, within the jurisdiction and venue of this 5 Court, located at 1510 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California 94306. DaimlerChrysler, the 6 successor-in-interest of DaimlerBenz, is the parent company of DCA (the successor-in-interest 7 of MBA) and owns 100 percent of the latter. DaimlerChrysler utilizes DCA as its mere 8 instrumentality and so dominates and controls the latter that the two companies are in fact alter 9 egos. Among other things, DaimlerChrysler maintains domination and control over the 10 11 employment practices, labor relations and human rights practices of DCA. 23. DaimlerChrysler, in response to concerns raised by its own shareholders, 12 recently investigated MBA (now known as DCA) in relation to the very allegations at the heart 13 of the instant action and produced a detailed report of this investigation which it released 14 publicly in December of 2003. DaimlerChrysler paid the full cost of this investigation and 15 treated the investigation as if it was an internal review of its own operations. DaimlerChrysler 16 has publicly defended the former officials of MBA alleged to have engaged in the misconduct 17 detailed herein and has publicly treated these officials as its own officials, referring to them as 18 “our top management” which DaimlerChrysler must protect. And, while the report of this 19 investigation concluded that these MBA officials had foreseeably placed the workers at issue 20 in this case in mortal danger by giving their identities and addresses to repressive state forces 21 in Argentina, and by designating these workers as “subversives” to these forces, 22 DaimlerChrysler nonetheless continues to defend the conduct of these officials and of MBA. 23 DaimlerChrysler has thereby ratified this conduct. 24 24. In addition, throughout the time period at issue in this case, MBA was 25 dominated and controlled by DaimlerBenz, the predecessor-in-interest of Defendant 26 DaimlerChrysler, through such DaimlerBenz officers as Klaus Oertel. The domination and 27 control of MBA resulted in MBA acting as a legal or de facto agent for DaimlerBenz with 28 respect to the wrongful acts alleged herein. DaimlerBenz was fully aware of the participation 6 COMPLAINT 1 of the MBA officials in the human rights violations detailed in this Complaint and 2 DaimlerBenz approved and ratified this participation. As a result of the above, Defendant 3 DaimlerChrysler is either directly liable for its own conduct in aiding and abetting the actions 4 of MBA or is vicariously liable for the conduct of its agent MBA. III. 5 6 25. JURISDICTION This Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331 and The 7 Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350. The Alien Tort Claims Act (“ACTA”) provides 8 federal jurisdiction for “any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of 9 the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” Plaintiffs’ causes of action arise under, 10 inter alia, customary international law, as expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human 11 Rights; the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or 12 Punishment; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the Charter of the 13 Organization of American States; the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man; 14 and the American Convention on Human Rights. 15 26. This Court also had federal question jurisdiction under the Torture Victims 16 Protection Act, 28 U.S.C., §1350, note. The Torture Victims Protection Act (“TVPA”) 17 expressly provides for civil liability against any “individual,” interpreted by the Ninth Circuit 18 to include corporation, “who, under actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign 19 nation -- (1) subjects an individual to torture . . . or (2) subjects an individual to extra-judicial 20 killing . . . .” 21 27. This Court has supplemental and ancillary jurisdiction over the state law claims. 22 28. This Court also has diversity jurisdiction over the federal and state claims 23 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332, because the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000 24 exclusive of interest and costs for each named Plaintiff, and there is complete diversity 25 between all Plaintiffs and the Defendant. IV. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 26 27 28 29. Venue properly lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 (b) and (c) because Defendant DaimlerChrysler does business and maintains a primary place of business 7 COMPLAINT 1 within the State of California and within the district of this Court. In particular, 2 DaimlerChrysler maintains a facility known as DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology 3 Center North America at 1510 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California 94306. V. FACTS 4 5 30. In 1975, amidst labor strife between MBA and its workers, and amidst labor 6 strife in general in Argentina, MBA signed an accord in which it agreed to set aside one 7 percent of its sales for the “eradication of the negative elements of the factory.” This accord 8 was officially approved by the national Labor Ministry of Argentina. 9 31. Shortly after Mercedes signed the above-referenced accord, a majority of 10 workers at the MBA plant in Gonzalez-Catan elected an independent commission to represent 11 them in discussing wages and other terms and conditions of employment with MBA. This 12 commission came to be known as “the group of nine” or the “Internal Commission.” MBA 13 refused to negotiate with this Internal Commission. In response, approximately 4,000 workers 14 went out on strike in support of the demand that MBA recognize and bargain with the Internal 15 Commission. MBA discharged 117 of these striking workers whom Klaus Oertel, then an 16 officer of DaimlerBenz and chief Director of MBA, characterized as “known activists, [and] 17 extreme elements.” The firing of these workers was ratified by the Labor Ministry of 18 Argentina which declared the strike illegal. 19 32. Subsequently, a high-ranking official of MBA, Heinrich Metz, was kidnapped. 20 Mr. Metz was ultimately released unharmed. In response to this kidnapping, MBA Director of 21 Legal Affairs Ruben Cueva sent a declaration to the political police of Argentina in which he 22 singled out four ex-workers of MBA, including Plaintiff Eduardo Olasiregui, as the potential 23 perpetrators of this kidnapping. As Cueva explained in this October 24, 1975 letter, all of 24 these four suspects had been workers and activists at MBA, but had been discharged no later 25 than October of 1974. Cueva in this same letter insinuated that the kidnapping was linked to 26 the strike in the MBA plant in 1975 in which workers demanded that MBA recognize and 27 bargain with the Internal Commission. Cueva then went out of his way in this same letter to 28 name all of the members of this Commission, including Plaintiffs Eduardo Estivill and Jose 8 COMPLAINT 1 2 Barreiro and to provide the political police with their home addresses. 33. In 1976, shortly after the aforementioned events, the military overthrew the 3 democratically-elected President of Argentina, Isabel Peron, and set up a military junta which 4 governed over Argentina until 1983. During the period of this military rule, approximately 5 30,000 individuals were kidnapped, tortured and “disappeared” by the military and police 6 forces. A disproportionate number of these “disappeared” were blue collar workers with trade 7 union affiliations. 8 34. 9 The height of the military repression, including the “disappearances,” occurred in the first year following the coup, from 1976 through 1977. As indicated in a March 22, 10 1977 memorandum of MBA, MBA approved of the methods of the military and police during 11 this period, stating that “[i]n those days you achieved important results in the military reaction 12 against the guerilla, among other things, one of those responsible for the kidnapping of Metz 13 was eliminated. In general the result of the government’s methods during its first year were 14 favorable and open good prospects for the development of the country.” 15 35. During this period of intense repression from 1976 through 1977, MBA, fully 16 aware of the conduct of the military and police in “disappearing” individuals they perceived as 17 “subversive” or “extremist,” maintained close ties with high-ranking members of the military 18 and police forces and utilized these forces to rid its plant in Gonzalez-Catan of individuals 19 MBA itself viewed as “subversive” and as slowing production, including leaders and 20 supporters of the independent commission. To this end, MBA, through various high-ranking 21 employees/officials -- including Director of Human Resources Pedro de Elias, Director of 22 Legal Affairs Ruben Pablo Cueva, and Director of Production Juan Tasselkraut -- had 23 members of the military and police forces stationed within the Gonzalez-Catan plant, opened 24 the plant to periodic raids by these forces and identified to these forces which workers it 25 deemed to be “subversive.” These MBA officials did so with the full knowledge that the 26 singling out of alleged “subversives” to these military and police forces would foreseeably 27 result in the summary apprehension, detention, torture and “disappearance” of such 28 individuals. 9 COMPLAINT 1 36. As a recently declassified U.S. State Department document noted, as a general 2 matter, management of corporations in Argentina collaborated with the state security forces in 3 this repression in order to rid the corporations of labor agitators. As this document, a wire 4 from the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires to the U.S. Secretary of State written in June of 1978, 5 explained: “WE BELIEVE THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF COOPERATION GENERALY 6 BETWEEN MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SECURITY AGENCIES 7 AIMED AT ELIMINATING TERRORIST INFILTRATORS FROM THE INDUSTRIAL 8 WORK PLACES AND AT MINIMIZING THE RISK OF INDUSTRIAL STRIFE.” This 9 same document noted the disturbing trend, particularly in the first years of the military coup, of 10 “DENUNCIATIONS FROM MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGED TERRORIST ACTIVITIES 11 IN THE PLANTS WHICH MAY BE LITTLE MORE THAN LIEGITIMATE [sic.](ALBEIT 12 ILLEGAL) LABOR UNREST.” MBA’s collaboration with the security forces in dealing with 13 its labor unrest was typical of the period. 14 37. This collaboration between Argentine authorities and corporations generally, 15 and MBA in particular, emanated from their shared aim of ridding industry of labor union 16 activity. This aim is set forth in the following statement by the Minister of Labor on 17 November 12, 1977: “. . . the Government and the Armed Forces have committed their 18 resources and maximum effort to guaranteeing the freedom to work, and family and individual 19 security for management and workers, and the annihilation of that public enemy. But it is 20 worth remembering that those who deviate from the course taken by the 'Process' in search of 21 individual or group benefit become accomplices of that subversion which must be destroyed, 22 as do those who lack the courage to assume the responsibilities imposed by this situation.” 23 38. The individuals MBA singled out to the authorities as “subversives” included all 24 of the Plaintiffs in this case: Oscar Alberto Alvarez Bauman, Miguel Grieco, Diego Nuñez, 25 Esteban Reimer, Alberto Francisco Arenas, Alberto Gigena, Fernando Omar del Connte, 26 Hector Belmonte, Jorge Leichner, Hector Ratto, Eduardo Olasiregui, Ricardo Martin Hoffman, 27 Eduardo Estivill, Alfredo Manuel Martin, Juan Jose Martin, Jose Barreiro and Alejandro Daer. 28 All of these individuals were activists in the Internal Commission. 10 COMPLAINT 1 39. The first Plaintiff to fall victim to MBA’s campaign against independent 2 activists was Juan Jose Martin. On April 29, 1976, Plaintiff Juan Jose Martin was kidnapped 3 by military and police forces directly from his post at work at the MBA plant in Gonzalez- 4 Catan. The forces engaged in this kidnapping were directed by MBA officials, including 5 Director of Human Resources Pedro de Elias and Director of Production Juan Tasselkraut, to 6 Juan Jose Martin and were told by these same MBA officials that he was a “subversive.” Juan 7 Jose Martin was held in the custody of the military in the police station of San Justo without 8 warrant or charges for 19 days, during which time he was physically and mentally tortured by 9 the military. This torture included electroshocks to Mr. Martin’s person. Ruben Lavallen, the 10 Chief of this police station at the time, oversaw the torture and interrogation of Mr. Martin and 11 did so with the knowledge and approval of Director of Human Resources Pedro de Elias. 12 40. On May 5, 1976, during this period of captivity, Pedro de Elias wrote a 13 memorandum in which he stated that Juan Jose Martin was being detained by military 14 authorities. As Pedro de Elias wrote in referring to Martin, “the military authorities detained a 15 worker inside the plant in the search of his home prohibited Marxist books were found.” Juan 16 Jose Martin was finally released alive after his 19 days of captivity as a result of the protest of 17 fellow workers and union activists. 18 41. On December 14, 1976, Plaintiff Alfredo Martin, a union leader, was kidnapped 19 from his home by police forces, including station Chief Ruben Lavallen, and brought to the 20 police headquarters in San Justo where he was held for hours without warrant or charges. 21 During his period of captivity, Alfredo Martin was physically and mentally tortured by both 22 military forces and Ruben Lavellen who, inter alia, submitted his body to electroshocks. 23 Again, the kidnapping and torture of Martin were carried out by the police forces with the 24 knowledge and approval of MBA officials, including Pedro de Elias. When Martin returned to 25 the MBA plant in Gonzalez-Catan after being held and tortured, Director of Production Juan 26 Tasselkraut was waiting for him and acknowledged that he knew exactly what had happened 27 with Martin. 28 42. Also on the night of December 14, 1976, union activist Miguel Grieco, a worker 11 COMPLAINT 1 at the MBA plant in Gonzalez-Catan was forcibly kidnapped from his home by police forces at 2 the direction of MBA officials, including Director of Human Resources Pedro de Elias. 3 Miguel Grieco was never seen or heard from again after this night. Mr. Grieco is presumed 4 murdered and is officially listed as one of Argentina’s “disappeared.” 5 43. On January 5, 1977, Esteban A. Reimer, an active leader of the Internal 6 Commission and one of the chief spokesmen for the workers at the MBA plant in Gonzalez- 7 Caton, was seized at his home by members of the First Army Command in front of his family 8 and taken away. These military forces carried with them a list upon which Reimer’s name 9 appeared. Before withdrawing from Reimer’s home with Mr. Reimer in their custody, they 10 crossed Mr. Reimer’s name from this list. Reimer’s family members searched for him at local 11 police stations but no officials at these stations would acknowledge that Mr. Reimer had been 12 apprehended. After his disappearance, he was seen only once again. Specifically, he was seen 13 with fellow union leader and MBA employee Victor Hugo Ventura, who was also kidnapped 14 on the night of January 5, 1977, at the police station of Ruben Lavallen. After that, neither 15 Reimer nor Ventura were ever seen again. Both Reimer and Ventura are presumed murdered 16 and are officially listed among Argentina’s “disappeared.” 17 44. The security forces who captured Mr. Reimer on the night of January 5, 1977 18 were acting upon intelligence given to them by MBA officials. Specifically, they were acting 19 upon copies of personnel files which MBA gave to the military forces at the end of 1976 in 20 which MBA accused him of distributing pamphlets endorsed by the Internal Commission and 21 referring to him as an “agitator” who would “integrate the Workers Movement of the 22 Company.” According to Defendant DaimlerChrysler’s own internal report of the events at 23 issue in this lawsuit, a report just released in December of 2003, MBA’s release of this 24 information to the state security forces had foreseeably “fatal consequences” for Mr. Reimer. 25 45. Shortly thereafter, military forces came searching for and ransacked the homes 26 of MBA workers and union activists Ricardo Martin Hoffman, Eduardo Estivill and Jose 27 Barreiro. The military forces came looking for these individuals with the intent to kidnap and 28 “disappear” them, as they had the others, based upon MBA’s assertion to these forces that they 12 COMPLAINT 1 were “subversives.” In response to these activities of the military and in light of their 2 knowledge of the kidnapping and disappearance of their co-workers as described above, 3 Plaintiffs Hoffman, Estivill and Barreiro were forced into hiding and exile in fear for their very 4 lives. Specifically, Hoffman and Estivill were forced to go into exile in Europe. 5 46. In August of 1977, tensions between MBA and the supporters of the Internal 6 Commission became increasingly tense over a work slowdown initiated by the independent 7 union activists. In early August of 1977, MBA Director of Human Resources Pedro de Elias 8 wrote in a memorandum that “the factory finds itself in a critical situation . . . with serious 9 consequences for the production.” Shortly after this was written, union activists were 10 systematically kidnapped and disappeared by police and military forces acting at the behest of 11 MBA officials, including MBA Director of Production Juan Tasselkraut and MBA Director of 12 Human Resources Pedro de Elias. 13 47. Specifically, between August 12 and August 19, 1977, MBA workers and 14 independent union activists Oscar Alberto Alvarez Bauman (Aug. 4), Hector Ratto (Aug. 12), 15 Fernando Omar Del Connte (Aug. 12), Alberto Gigena (Aug. 13), Hector Belmonte (Aug. 13), 16 Diego Nuñez (Aug. 13), Jorge Alberto Leichner (Aug. 14) and Alberto Francisco Arenas (Aug. 17 19) were forcibly apprehended and kidnapped by military forces. Of these individuals, only 18 Hector Ratto survived. All of these other individuals were never seen or heard from again. 19 They are presumed murdered and are officially listed as Argentina’s “disappeared.” In the 20 case of disappeared Alberto Gigena, his wife Plaintiff Graciela Beatriz Velazquez de Gigena 21 witnessed his violent kidnapping from their home on the night of August 13. This kidnapping 22 was carried out, as she witnessed, by police forces including station Chief Ruben Lavallen. 23 48. As for Hector Ratto, he was kidnapped directly from the MBA plant in 24 Gonzalez-Catan by military forces acting at the direction of MBA Director of Production Juan 25 Tasselkraut. Hector Ratto was held in a secret detention center for one and a half years, during 26 which time he was regularly tortured by the police and military forces through, inter alia, the 27 electroshocking of his person. This electroshock torture resulted in Mr. Ratto’s arms being 28 paralyzed for over 2 months. 13 COMPLAINT 1 49. Other MBA workers and independent union activists, not represented in this 2 lawsuit, were also “disappeared” during this period in August of 1977, including Juan Jose 3 Mosquera and Charles del Carmen Grossi. 4 50. In addition, during this same period in August of 1977, military forces came 5 searching for and ransacked the homes of MBA worker and union activist Alejandro Daer. 6 The military forces detained some family members of Alejandro Daer in an attempt to coerce 7 them into telling them of Daer’s whereabouts. The military forces came looking for Daer with 8 the intent to kidnap and “disappear” him as they had the others based upon MBA’s assertion to 9 these forces that Daer was a “subversive.” In response to these activities of the military and in 10 light of their knowledge of the kidnapping and disappearance of their co-workers as described 11 above, Plaintiff Alejandro Daer was forced into hiding and exile in fear for his life. 12 Specifically, Daer was forced into exile in Brazil. 13 51. After this period in August of 1977 in which the aforesaid workers were 14 detained, “disappeared” or forced into exile, MBA Director of Human Resources Pedro de 15 Elias wrote in an MBA memorandum that the actions of the military in ridding MBA of these 16 workers had, as anticipated, ended the production slowdown and were welcome by MBA. As 17 he wrote, “the workers of MBA detained by the security forces were still not freed. In the 18 factory they calmed the situation but they have not normalized it. The strike ended on Friday 19 and without it the production has returned to its maximum performance.” 20 52. MBA, with full knowledge and approval of police station Chief Ruben 21 Lavallen’s participation in the crimes as described above, hired Mr. Lavallen as Chief of 22 Security for MBA in 1978. In so hiring Lavallen, MBA formalized the agency relationship 23 which it maintained with Lavallen throughout the period described above when the 24 independent union activists were kidnapped, tortured and disappeared and ratified Lavallen’s 25 conduct in participating in these crimes. 26 53. Plaintiff Eduardo Olasiregui, who had been accused by MBA Director of Legal 27 Affairs Ruben Cueva as one of the suspected kidnappers of MBA official Metz, was arrested 28 by official police forces and imprisoned for two and a half years as a result of this charge. This 14 COMPLAINT 1 charge had been maliciously leveled by Cueva as retaliation for Olasiregui’s union activities. 2 Olasiregui was later exonerated and pardoned for the kidnapping of Metz, but not before he 3 lost years of his life to imprisonment. 4 54. Defendant DaimlerChrysler and its alter ego and/or agent, MBA (now known as 5 “DCA”) are vicariously liable for all of the aforementioned tortious actions as they were 6 committed in furtherance of MBA’s business interests and activities and with the advance 7 knowledge, acquiescence and subsequent ratification of MBA and DaimlerBenz, the 8 predecessor-in-interest of DaimlerChrysler. Defendant DaimlerChrysler itself has recently 9 ratified these tortious acts through its actions as detailed above in paragraph 23. Further, all of 10 the wrongful acts alleged herein were committed by individuals retained as employees or 11 agents of MBA, making DaimlerChrysler, through the agents of its alter ego or agent, MBA, 12 directly or vicariously liable for all of the wrongful acts. 13 55. Plaintiffs do not have an adequate forum in Argentina in which to bring the 14 instant action. This is so because, despite changes in the central government of Argentina, the 15 Argentine courts are still filled with corrupt judges from the period of the repression. In 16 addition, Plaintiffs have a legitimate fear of reprisal if they bring this action in Argentina 17 because the police and military forces are also filled with officials left over from the repression 18 and because people continue to be threatened for speaking out against the injustices which 19 occurred during the time of the military dictatorship. Indeed, Alfredo Martin was recently the 20 subject of a kidnap attempt, and he was threatened that if he continued to speak out about his 21 treatment during the military dictatorship, he would be kidnapped. Civil cases in Argentina 22 routinely take over 10 years to reach decision, and the remedy provided in analogous civil 23 cases is inadequate. 24 56. While the events at issue in this case took place some time ago, the statute of 25 limitations in this case should be tolled because MBA, and the police and military forces it 26 conspired with, actively attempted (many times successfully) to hide their crimes by 27 “disappearing” the bodies of the victims. The bodies of all the “disappeared” at issue in this 28 case have never been found. The destruction of evidence by the “disappearance” of the 15 COMPLAINT 1 individuals in this case have also severely hampered and delayed the attempts of the surviving 2 Plaintiffs in this case to ascertain the facts surrounding their victimization and to ascertain the 3 identity of those responsible for their victimization. In addition, after the military dictatorship, 4 the government of Argentina passed immunity laws which protected those guilty of the crimes 5 committed during the dictatorship and thereby assured that the facts surrounding these crimes 6 would not come to light. These immunity laws remain on the books to this day. As a result, 7 the facts of this case have only recently emerged in the past few years. 8 VI. DEFENDANT’S VIOLATIONS OF LAW 9 57. Defendant’s actions as hereinabove alleged violate, and Plaintiffs’ causes of 10 action arise from, the following laws, agreements, conventions, resolutions and treaties, which 11 constitute specific examples of the applicable law of nations or customary international law: 12 a. Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350; 13 b. Torture Victims Protection Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350; 14 c. Common law of the United States of America; 15 d. United Nations Charter, 59 Stat. 1031, 3 Bevans 1153 (1945); 16 e. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A(iii), U.N. Doc. A/810 (1948); 17 18 f. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. Res. 19 2220A(xxi), 21 U.N. Doc., GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc. 20 A/6316 (1966); 21 g. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading 22 Treatment or Punishment, G.A. res. 39/46, 39 U.N. Doc., GAOR Supp. 23 (No. 51) at 197, U.N. Doc. A/39/51 (1984)(ratified 10/28/98); 24 h. Declaration on the Protection of All Persons From Being Subjected to 25 Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or 26 Punishment, G.A. Res. 3452, 30 U.N. Doc., GAOR Supp. (No. 34) at 91, 27 U.N. Doc. A/10034 (1976); 28 i. Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (World Conference on 16 COMPLAINT Human Rights, 1993); 1 2 j. Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions; and 3 k. Statutes and common law of the State of California, including but not limited to, wrongful death, negligence, and recklessness. 4 5 VII. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 6 First Cause of Action (For Extrajudicial Killing On Behalf of Category I Plaintiffs Against Defendant) 7 8 9 58. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 57 of this Complaint as 10 is set forth herein. 11 59. Defendant, or Defendant’s employees or agents, engaged in acts of intentionally 12 and tortiously causing the apprehension, torture, deaths and disappearances of worker activists 13 Oscar Alberto Alvarez Bauman, Miguel Grieco, Diego Nuñez, Esteban A. Reimer, Alberto 14 Francisco Arenas, Alberto Gigena, Fernando Omar Del Connte, Jorge Leichner and Hector 15 Belmonte. Specifically, as is alleged above, Defendant, operating under color of law, 16 conspired and acted jointly with the Argentina military and police to have these workers 17 kidnapped, tortured and murdered. Defendant’s employees and/or agents, including high- 18 ranking officials Pedro de Elias and Juan Tasselkraut, acting in the furtherance of Defendant’s 19 business interests, carried forth this conspiracy to disappear these workers. In addition, 20 Defendant provided significant moral and logistical support, supplies, intelligence and other 21 substantial assistance that contributed to the ability of the Argentine police and military to 22 carry out the murder and disappearances of Oscar Alberto Alvarez Bauman, Miguel Grieco, 23 Diego Nuñez, Esteban A. Reimer, Alberto Francisco Arenas, Alberto Gigena, Fernando Omar 24 Del Connte, Hector Belmonte and Jorge Leichner. Defendant furthermore ratified the 25 participation of police station chief Ruben Lavallen in a number of these crimes when, with 26 full knowledge of this participation, it hired him as its Chief of Security after the crimes were 27 committed. These acts violate the law of nations, customary international law, and worldwide 28 industry standards and practices, including, but not limited to, the specific laws, agreements, 17 COMPLAINT 1 conventions, resolutions and treaties listed in paragraph 57, supra. The acts described herein 2 are actionable under the ATCA and the TVPA, and, if such a showing is required, were done 3 jointly with the official armed forces of Argentina. 4 60. Defendant’s conduct in violation of the law of nations, customary international 5 law, and worldwide industry standards and practices, including, but not limited to, the specific 6 laws, agreements, conventions, resolutions and treaties listed in paragraph 57, supra, resulted 7 in the deaths of Plaintiffs’ family members. Defendant is directly liable for these violations of 8 the law of nations, customary international law, and worldwide industry standards and 9 practices, including, but not limited to, the specific laws, agreements, conventions, resolutions 10 and treaties listed in paragraph 57, supra. Defendant is also vicariously liable for any 11 violations of its employees or agents of the law of nations, customary international law, and 12 worldwide industry standards and practices, including, but not limited to, the specific laws, 13 agreements, conventions, resolutions and treaties listed in paragraph 57, supra. 14 61. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, in amounts to be ascertained 15 at trial, for the losses and suffering they endured as a result of the murder of their loved ones 16 named herein. Plaintiffs’ losses and suffering are particularly acute in light of the fact that 17 their loved ones were “disappeared” and their bodies never found, preventing them from ever 18 obtaining closure over their deaths. Indeed, the lives of the Plaintiffs have been invariably 19 shattered as a result of these disappearances. Plaintiffs, as the heirs of these disappeared 20 workers, also seek compensatory and punitive damages, amounts to be ascertained at trial, for 21 the losses and suffering endured by these individuals as a result of the wrongful actions of the 22 Defendant herein. 23 Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below. Second Cause of Action (For Torture On Behalf of Category II Plaintiffs Against Defendant) 24 25 26 62. 27 if set forth herein. 28 63. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 61 of this Complaint as The acts described herein placed Plaintiffs in great fear for their lives and caused 18 COMPLAINT 1 them to suffer severe physical and mental pain and suffering. Plaintiffs have been subjected to 2 acute and continuing emotional and physical trauma as a result of their being kidnapped, 3 arbitrarily imprisoned, electroshocked and/or forced into exile. This continuing emotional and 4 physical trauma of the Plaintiffs includes severe depression, headaches, nightmares, lack of 5 concentration and suicidal urges. The severe suffering of Plaintiffs was a foreseeable and 6 intended consequence of Defendant’s actions described herein. Defendant acted with knowing 7 disregard for the life and well-being of the Plaintiffs. The acts of Defendant amounted to the 8 torture of Plaintiffs and violate the law of nations, customary international law, and worldwide 9 industry standards and practices, including, but not limited to, the specific laws, agreements, 10 11 conventions, resolutions and treaties listed in paragraph 57, supra. 64. The acts described herein were inflicted deliberately and intentionally for 12 purposes which include, among others, punishing the victim or third persons, and constitute 13 torture in violation of the laws of nations as described above in paragraph 57, supra, and are 14 therefore actionable under both the ATCA and the TVPA. 15 Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below. Third Cause of Action (For Crimes Against Humanity On Behalf of All Plaintiffs Against Defendant) 16 17 18 65. 19 if set forth herein. 20 66. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 64 of this Complaint as The apprehension, kidnapping, detention, torture and disappearance of the 21 individuals named in this action were neither random nor occasional but widespread and 22 systematic. These acts occurred under the direction, encouragement and acquiescence of 23 Defendant and in furtherance of Defendant’s business. As a result of these acts, all of the 24 Plaintiffs have been subjected to acute and continuing emotional and physical trauma, 25 including severe depression, headaches, nightmares, lack of concentration and suicidal urges. 26 67. The acts described herein constitute crimes against humanity, in violation of the 27 laws described in paragraph 57 above, and are therefore actionable under the ATCA. 28 Customary international law prohibits inhumane acts of a very serious nature such as 19 COMPLAINT 1 kidnapping, willful killing, torture, arbitrary detention, forced exile and other inhumane acts 2 committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population. 3 Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation of these acts, 4 such as Defendant here, are responsible for all acts performed by any person in execution of 5 such plan. 6 Wherefore, plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below. Fourth Cause of Action (For Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment On Behalf of All Plaintiffs Against All Defendant) 7 8 9 68. 10 if set forth herein. 11 69. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 67 of this Complaint as The acts described herein had the intent and the effect of grossly humiliating and 12 debasing Plaintiffs, inciting fear and anguish and breaking their will and physical and moral 13 resistance. As a result of these acts, all of the Plaintiffs have been subjected to acute and 14 continuing emotional and physical trauma, including severe depression, headaches, 15 nightmares, lack of concentration and suicidal urges. 16 17 18 19 20 70. Plaintiffs were placed in great fear for their lives and the lives of their loved ones and were forced to suffer severe physical and psychological abuse and agony. 71. The acts described herein constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of the laws described in paragraph 57 and are therefore actionable under the ATCA. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below. 21 Fifth Cause of Action (For Wrongful Death On Behalf of Category I Plaintiffs Against Defendant) 22 23 24 25 26 27 72. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 71 of this Complaint as if set forth herein. 73. Defendant, or Defendant’s employees or agents, acted in concert with Argentine military and police to commit acts that constitute wrongful death under the laws of the State of California and that caused the deaths of Oscar Alberto Alvarez Bauman, Miguel Grieco, Diego 28 20 COMPLAINT 1 Nuñez, Esteban A. Reimer, Alberto Francisco Arenas, Alberto Gigena, Fernando Omar Del 2 Connte, Hector Belmonte and Jorge Leichner. Plaintiffs, relatives and representatives of the 3 estates of these deceased, seek damages herein for pecuniary loss resulting from loss of 4 society, comfort, attention, services and support and for the losses suffered by these murdered 5 and “disappeared” individuals. 6 74. Defendant’s actions were a direct and substantial cause of the deaths of Oscar 7 Alberto Alvarez Bauman, Miguel Grieco, Diego Nuñez, Esteban A. Reimer, Alberto Francisco 8 Arenas, Alberto Gigena, Fernando Omar Del Connte, Hector Belmonte and Jorge Leichner. 9 Defendant failed to use due care to protect them from injury and harm, thereby proximately 10 causing their wrongful deaths. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover compensatory and punitive 11 damages in amounts to be ascertained at trial. 12 Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below. Sixth Cause of Action (For Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress By All Plaintiffs Against Defendant) 13 14 15 75. 16 if set forth herein. 17 76. 18 19 Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 74 of this Complaint as The conduct alleged herein on the of Defendant constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct against the Plaintiffs. 77. Defendant intended to cause Plaintiffs to suffer severe emotional distress, or, in 20 the alternative, Defendant engaged in the conduct with reckless disregard of the probability of 21 causing these individuals to suffer severe and ongoing emotional distress. 22 23 24 78. Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer severe emotional distress and the outrageous conduct of Defendant was a cause of the emotional distress suffered by them. 79. Defendant’s outrageous conduct constitutes the intentional infliction of 25 emotional distress and is actionable under the laws of California, the United States and 26 Argentina. 27 Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below. 28 21 COMPLAINT 1 VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to: 3 1. enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on all counts of the Complaint; 4 2. declare that Defendant has violated Plaintiffs’ human rights and the laws of the State of California and the United States, as set forth herein; 5 6 3. award Plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial; 7 8 4. award Plaintiffs the costs of suit including reasonable attorneys’ fees; 9 5. award Plaintiffs such other and further relief as the Court deems just under the 10 11 circumstances. Dated: January 13, 2004 Respectfully submitted, 12 CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP 13 INTERNATIONAL LABOR RIGHTS FUND 14 DANIEL M. KOVALIK 15 By: 16 MARK A. CHAVEZ 17 Attorneys for Plaintiffs BARBARA BAUMAN, et al. 18 19 20 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 21 22 Dated: January 13, 2004 Respectfully submitted, 23 CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP 24 INTERNATINOAL LABOR RIGHTS FUND 25 DANIEL M. KOVALIK 26 27 28 By: MARK A. CHAVEZ Attorneys for Plaintiffs BARBARA BAUMAN, et al. 22 COMPLAINT 1 2 3 CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-16, the undersigned certifies that as of this date, other than the named Plaintiffs, there is no such interest to report. 4 5 Dated: January 13, 2004 Respectfully submitted, 6 CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP 7 INTERNATIONAL LABOR RIGHTS FUND 8 DANIEL M. KOVALIK 9 By: 10 MARK A. CHAVEZ 11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs BARBARA BAUMAN, et al. 12 13 14 Complaint.doc 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 23 COMPLAINT

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?