Mamani et al v. Lozada Sanchez Bustamante

Filing 488

ORDER re 475 Supplement filed by Gonzalo Daniel Sanchez de Lozada Sanchez Bustamante: The defendants' renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law is GRANTED. The Court will issue a final judgment separately. Signed by Senior Judge James I. Cohn on 5/30/2018. (ane)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 07-22459-CIV-COHN/SELTZER
CASE NO. 08-21 063-CIV-COHN/SELTZER
ELOY ROJAS MAMANI, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

v.
JOSE CARLOS SANCHEZ BERZAfN,
Defendant in No. 07-22459.
GONZALO DANIEL SANCHEZ DE
LOZADA SANCHEZ BUSTAMANTE,
Defendant in No. 08-21063.

------------------~------------'
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A
MATTER OF LAW1
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendants' Renewed Motion for
Judgment as a Matter of Law [DE 501 in Case No. 07-22459; DE 475 in Case No. 0821 063] ("Motion"). 2 The Court has carefully considered the Motion, Plaintiffs' Response
and Defendants' Reply, the arguments of counsel on March 19 and 23, 2018, and the
record in these cases, and is otherwise advised in the premises. For the reasons set
forth below, Defendants' Motion is granted.

1

Although styled as a supplement to their original Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50( a) motion
made at the close of Plaintiffs' case, Defendants' Motion is properly considered a "renewed motion" under
Rule 50(b) because the Court declined to grar:Jt Defendants' original motion. See Ortiz v. Jordan, 562
U.S. 180, 189 (2011) ("Federal Rule.ofCiviiProcedure 50(b) ... permits the entry, postverdict, of
judgment for the verdict loser if the court finds that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain the
verdict."). Regardless, it is of no consequence whether the Motion is labeled a "supplement" or "renewal"
because the Motion advances the same grounds as Defendants' preverdict Rule 50(a) motion.
2
All docket citations in this Order refer to Case No. 07-22459, which was consolidated with Case
No. 08-21093 in May 2008 .. See DE 68.

I.

INTRODUCTION

These cases concern the Bolivian government's alleged massacre of its own
civilians during a period of civil unrest in Bolivia in 2003. Plaintiffs-nine Bolivian
residents and citizens-are the relatives of eight Bolivian civilians allegedly killed
deliberately by the Bolivian military. 3 The crux of Plaintiffs' claims is that two former
high-ranking Bolivian government offiCials-the former President, Gonzalo Daniel
Sanchez de Lozada Sanchez Bustamante ("Defendant Lozada"), and the former
Minister of Defense, Jose Carlos Sanchez Berzafn- ("Defendant Berzafn")masterminded a violent military campaign that led to Plaintiffs' relatives' deaths, all in an
effort to quell public opposition to their unpopular political agenda. Based on these
allegations, Plaintiffs brought claims against Defendants for extrajudicial killings under
the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 ("TVPA"), Pub. L. No. 102-256, 106 Stat. 73
(codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1350 note), and for intentional wrongful death under state law.
On April 3, 2018, after a three-week-long jury trial, the jury rendered a verdict for
Plaintiffs on their TVPA claims. DE 474. 4 The jury awarded Plaintiffs a total of $10
million dollars in compensatory damages, but declined to award any punitive damages.

3

Plaintiffs Eloy Rojas Mamani and Etelvina Ramos Mamani sue on behalf of their daughter,
Marlene Nancy Rojas Ramos. Plaintiff Sonia Espejo Villalobos sues on behalf of her common-law
husband, Lucio Santos Gandarillas Ayala. Plaintiff Hernan Apaza Cutipa sues on behalf of his sister,
Roxana Apaza Cutipa. Plaintiff Te6filo Baltazar Cerro sues on behalf of his wife, Teodosia Morales
Mamani. Plaintiff Juana Valencia de Carvajal sues on behalf of her husband, Marcelino Carvajal Lucero.
Plaintiff Herm6genes Bernabe Callizaya sues on behalf of his father, Jacinto Bernabe Roque. Plaintiff
Gonzalo Mamani Aguilar sues on behalf of his father, Arturo Mamani Mamani. Plaintiff Felicidad Rosa
Huanca Quispe sues on behalf of her father, Raul Ramon Huanca Marquez.
4
The jury found that Defendants were not liable under Bolivian wrongful death law. See DE 474.
While Defendants argue that this renders the jury's verdict inconsistent, the jury's finding of no liability
under Bolivian law is not at issue here. The Court has already held that the jury's verdict is not
irreconcilably inconsistent. DE 494 at 18:19-22 (4/3/18 Trial Tr.). And Defendants concede that even if
the Court were to reconsider this ruling, an inconsistent verdict would not itself be an independent basis
for granting the instant Motion. DE 501 at 18 n.5.

2

& Defendants now argue that Plaintiffs failed to present a legally sufficient evidentiary
basis for the jury's verdict, and therefore seek judgment as a matter of law.

II.

BACKGROUND

A.

Pleadings

This litigation has a lengthy procedural history, which is detailed in the Court's
Order Denying Defendants' Joint Motion for Summary Judgment, Mamani v. Berzafn,
_F. Supp. 3d_, 2018 WL 2013600, at *11-12 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 14, 2018), and need
not be repeated in full here. One aspect of the history of this litigation, however, is
worth highlighting given its significance to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion. That
is, the evolution of Plaintiffs' claims from their 2008 Amended Complaint [DE 77]-which
the Eleventh Circuit held "allege[d] no facts showing that the deaths in this case met the
minimal requirement for extrajudicial killing," Mamani v. Berzain, 654 F.3d 1148, 1155
(11th Cir. 2011) 5-to their 2013 Second Amended Complaint [DE 174], which this Court
held "alleged facts plausibly suggesting that [Plaintiffs'] relatives' deaths were
extrajudicial killings" under the TVPA. Mamani v. Berzain, 21 F. Supp. 3d 1353, 1374
(S.D. Fla. 2014).
In Plaintiffs' 2008 Amended Complaint, they alleged that in response to protests
in Bolivia in 2003, Defendants "order[ed] Bolivian security forces, including military
sharpshooters armed with high-powered rifles and soldiers and police wielding machine
guns, to attack and kill scores of unarmed civilians." DE 77

,-r 1. Plaintiffs specifically

alleged that in each part of the country where their relatives were killed, and on the days
in September and October 2003 when they were killed, soldiers fired upon civilians
5

While the Eleventh Circuit was specifically analyzing whether Plaintiffs had sufficiently pled a
cause of action under the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS"), not the TVPA, the Eleventh Circuit relied "on the
JVPA definition [of an extrajudicial killing] for guidance." Mamani, 654 F.3d at 1155.

3

without justification. See id. ,-r,-r 38-39 (alleging that on September 20, 2003, the Bolivian
military shot from a helicopter at villagers below in Warisata and attacked civilians there
with sharpshooters and machine guns); id. ,-r 54 (alleging that on October 12, 2003 in El
Alto, soldiers "took up firing positions ... and began shooting directly at civilians in the
road with rifles and machine guns"); id. ,-r 63 (alleging that on October 13, 2003 in La
Paz, "[t]he military opened fire [at villagers] with rifles and machine guns, and the
villagers fled in different directions," with "[t]he military continu[ing] to fire on the fleeing
villagers."). Plaintiffs described these acts as "part of a pattern and practice of systemic
and widespread attacks and human rights violations committed against the civilian
population in Bolivia from September to October 2003, for which Defendants bear
responsibility."

& ,-r 78. As noted above, the Eleventh Circuit held that these

allegations were insufficient to make out a plausible claim for extrajudicial killings.
Mamani, 654 F.3d at 1155.
The Eleventh Circuit explained that the TVPA defines an extrajudicial killing as a
"deliberated killing."

& at 1154 (citing TVPA § 3(a)). A deliberated killing is one that is

"undertaken with studied consideration and purpose."

& at 1155. The Eleventh Circuit

reasoned that Plaintiffs alleged no facts showing that decedents' deaths were
deliberated, and that "[o]n the contrary: even reading the well-pleaded allegations of fact
in the [Amended] Complaint in plaintiffs' favor, each of the plaintiffs' decedents' deaths
could plausibly have been the result of precipitate shootings during an ongoing civil
uprising."

&

That is, given the fact that the decedents were killed during a time of

"significant conflict" in Bolivia involving trapped travelers, thousands of protestors, and a
blockade of major highways to the nation's capital, the Eleventh Circuit noted that

4

alternative explanations (other than extrajudicial killing) for the pertinent
seven deaths easily come to mind; for instance, the alleged deaths are
compatible with accidental or negligent shooting (including mistakenly
identifying a target as a person who did pose a threat to others), individual
motivations (personal reasons) not linked to defendants, and so on.
~

Finally, the Eleventh Circuit went on to contrast the killings at issue in this litigation

with the killing at issue in Cabello v. Fernandez-Larios, 402 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir. 2005)
(per curiam), which involved a former military officer defendant personally commanding
a "killing squad" that killed civilian prisoners. The Eleventh Circuit held that "[t]he
specific targeting of the victim based on his political beliefs, direct involvement of the
defendant, and premeditated and deliberate circumstances of the victim's death
set Cabello apart from the facts alleged in this case." Mamani, 654 F.3d at 1155 n.9.
After the Eleventh Circuit instructed this Court to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on June 24, 2013. DE 174.
Critically, Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint included for the first time the allegation
that Defendants entered office with a preconceived plan to deliberately kill civilians in
order to suppress opposition to their economic policies. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged
..
that Defendants "took office . · intending to impose controversial economic programs"
and that "[t]hey knew that these programs, particularly a plan to export gas through
Chile, would trigger political protests."

~~

2. Given their awareness "that, in the past,

political protests had successfully pressured past governments to change unpopular
policies," Defendants allegedly decided "to use unlawful, lethal military force against
Bolivian civilians to ensure that the anticipated protests would not derail their unpopular
plans."

~ ~~

2-3. Plaintiffs further alleged that "Defendants made a conscious decision

that thousands of unlawful killings would be both necessary and acceptable to deter

5

protests," and that "in a meeting before the 2002 elections, Defendants agreed that they
would have to kill 2,000 or 3,000 people in order to ensure that popular opposition
would not block their proposals."

&

~ 4. Plaintiffs went on to describe how Defendants

implemented their alleged plan, and how the deaths of decedents and approximately
fifty others were the "intended result of Defendants' plan to use systematic unlawful
killings to quash and deter opposition to their economic programs."

&

~~5-7.

In sum,

Defendants' alleged plan to kill civilians was the centerpiece of Plaintiffs' Second
Amended Complaint.
When Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint,
Plaintiffs argued in response that the Second Amended Complaint "contain[ed] copious
new factual allegations directly showing that Defendants developed and executed an
unlawful plan that led to the deaths of Plaintiffs' family members," and noted that these
allegations "were not part of the [2008 Amended Complaint] and respond directly to the
omissions identified by the Eleventh Circuit," DE 189 at 2. In fact, when discussing the
differences between the Amended Complaint and the Second Amended Complaint,
Plaintiffs stated that "[m]ost important, the [Second Amended Complaint] contains
factual allegations that the two Defendants repeatedly discussed their plan to kill
civilians .... "

& at 27. Given these new allegations that decedents' deaths were the

intended result of Defendants' alleged preconceived plan, the Court denied Defendants'
motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' TVPA claims and held that Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged
that decedents' deaths were deliberated, and therefore extrajudicial killings. Mamani,
21 F. Supp. 3d at 1373-75. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit exercised its discretion not
to decide the issue of whether the Second Amended Complaint stated

6

a claim for

extrajudicial killings under the TVPA. Mamani v. Berzafn, 825 F.3d 1304, 1312-13 (11th
Cir. 2016).
Thereafter, on October 4, 2016, the Court set these cases for trial and permitted
discovery to commence. DE 232.
B.

Summary Judgment

On November 28, 2017, after approximately a year of discovery, Defendants
moved for summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs' claims. DE 342. Defendants argued,
inter alia, that the summary judgment record contained no evidence that any of

Plaintiffs' relatives were intentionally killed by the Bolivian military. See DE 342-1.
Specifically, Defendants argued that no reasonable jury could conclude that the killings
at issue were deliberated because Plaintiffs could not identify the specific individuals
who shot each decedent, much less present any evidence concerning whether those
unknown individuals shot the decedents intentionally.

kL. at 18.

In response, Plaintiffs argued that they were not required to identify the specific
individuals who shot each decedent because, even lacking such evidence, the summary
judgment record still sufficiently supported a finding that the decedents were killed
deliberately given evidence of Defendants' preconceived "plan to use military force to
kill unarmed civilians in order to suppress civilian protests and deter opposition to their
policies." DE 375 at 11, 14. Plaintiffs claimed that evidence suggesting that the
decedents' deaths resulted from the implementation of Defendants' alleged plan-which
had "the explicit goal of killing civilians"-was sufficient to support a finding that the
killings were deliberated.

kL. at 11-12.

7

Although Defendants' alleged plan to kill civilians was central. to Plaintiffs' theory
of the case, Plaintiffs' only evidence of the existence of this plan was the Declaration of
Victor Hugo Canelas Zannier. DE 375-10 (Cane las Decl.). 6 In his declaration, Mr.
Canelas stated that he was present at a meeting in 2001 at Defendant Lozada's home
where Defendant Berzain said that, when he and Defendant Lozada came into power,
they would "avoid the problems that President Hugo Banzer Suarez faced during the
'Water War"' 7 by using trained troops from eastern Bolivia (as opposed to conscripts) to
confront protesters, and that "it would be necessary to 'kill two or three thousand
people."' J.sl11114-6. According to Mr. Canelas' declaration, Defendant Lozada
"indicated that he approved of what [Defendant] Berzain said."

&

117.

Ultimately, the Court agreed with Plaintiffs that, at the summary judgment stage,
this evidence of Defendants' alleged plan to kill civilians, together with circumstantial
evidence that the decedents' deaths resulted from the implementation of this plan, was
sufficient to raise a jury question as to whether decedents' deaths were extrajudicial
killings. Mamani, _F. Supp. 3d_, 2018 WL 2013600, at *18-20. Specifically, the
Court held that "a reasonable jury, considering the evidence of Defendants' plan to kill
civilians to quash public opposition to their policies, could find that decedents' deaths
were deliberated because they were the expected and desired outcome of this plan."

&

at *18. The Court explained that, "given the totality of the [summary judgment] .

evidence"-from which the Court was required to draw all reasonable inferences in the

6

To be clear, Plaintiff cited additional evidence that, if accepted by the jury, could permit the
inference that the decedents' deaths resulted from the implementation of Defendants' alleged plan by the
Bolivian military. See DE 375 at 11-12. But Plaintiffs did not present any other evidence, apart from Mr.
Canelas' declaration, that could permit a reasonable inference of the existence of a plan to kill civilians.
7
During the "Water War" of 1999 and 2000, the Bolivian government was forced to abandon a
plan to privatize the water system in Cochabamba, Bolivia in the face of massive protests.

8

light most favorable to Plaintiffs-a jury could reasonably infer that decedents' deaths
resulted from the implementation of Defendants' plan to kill civilians based on five
pieces of evidence:
(1) changes in Bolivian military doctrine during Defendant Lozada's
administration to define protesters as subversives who could be targeted
with military force; (2) a pattern of soldiers being ordered to shoot
unarmed civilians in multiple different locations, including each location
where decedents were killed, on multiple different dates; (3) a pattern of
soldiers shooting indiscriminately at civilians at times when witnesses saw
no armed protesters or anything indicating that the soldiers were firing
defensively; (4) Defendants' repeated refusal to seriously commit to
achieving peaceful, negotiated solutions to protests; and (5) consistent
with Defendants' plan, the utilization of troops from Eastern Bolivia.

In sum, given Plaintiffs' evidence that (1) a plan to kill civilians existed and (2)
decedents' deaths resulted from the implementation of this plan by the Bolivian military,
the Court held that Plaintiffs could withstand summary judgment despite their inability to
present any witnesses who saw the individuals who shot each decedent.
C.

~

Trial

The Court held a jury trial beginning on March 5, 2018. DE 438. During the
course of trial, Plaintiffs presented at least some circumstantial evidence in each of the
five categories that the Court, in its summary judgment Order, had held-if accepted by
the jury-could permit the reasonable inference that the decedents deaths' resulted
from the Bolivian military's implementation of a plan to kill civilians. But critically,
Plaintiffs failed to present any evidence that such a plan actually existed.
At trial, like at summary judgment, Mr. Canelas was the only witness offered by
Plaintiffs to testify regarding a plan to kill civilians. But Mr. Canelas did not testify at trial
according to his earlier summary judgment declaration. While he testified about the
9

meeting at Defendant Lozada's home where Defendant Berzafn made a comment
about using troops from eastern Bolivia to kill civilians, rather than offer admissible
testimony that Defendant Lozada indicated his approval of this comment, Mr. Cane las
only testified that Defendant Lozada responded "This is over" and then "just adjourned
the meeting." DE 482 at 92:6-12 (3/14/18 Trial Tr.). Despite repeated prodding by
Plaintiffs' counsel, Mr. Canelas did not offer any admissible testimony that Defendant
Lozada approved of Defendant Berzafn's comment or otherwise indicated any
agreement to a plan to kill civilians. 8 Mr. Canelas' trial testimony is set forth below in
relevant part:
A: ... It was in [Defendant Lozada's] residence. It is a meeting where I
approach, and I hear Carlos Sanchez Berzain. In Bolivia, in the year
2000, under the government of Banzer, what was known as the Water
War, where the people of Cochabamba opposed the privatization of water,
and Banzer uses force in the attempt to repress them. And I heard Carlos
Sanchez Berzain say, "It's not going to happen to us as it happened to
Banzer." Banzer used soldiers without what we call in Bolivia mostrencos.
Mr. Sanchez Berzain continues, and he says, "What we're going to use
are elite troops, troops from the Beni, and we will kill 50, a hundred, a
thousand." Upon hearing that I said to the people that were gathered
there, but I was addressing Sanchez Berzain, that if it were a matter of
killing people, dictatorships would have lasted forever.
BY MR. MUNOZ:
Q: What happens after that?
A: [Defendant Lozada] adjourns that meeting, because other people are
now arriving. He says to everyone and he says to me, "This is over."
Q: Did Mr. de Lozada have a response to the comment made by either Mr.
Berzain or you?
A: No specific commentary. He just adjourned the meeting and, from my
point of view, with some sort of approval.

8

The Court excluded as speculative Mr. Canelas' opinion that, when Defendant Lozada
adjourned the meeting, he did so "from my point of view, with some sort of approval." J..Q,_ at 92:11-14;
93:4-9.

10

MS. REYES: Objection, Your Honor. Speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained as to the conClusion.
MS. REYES: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.
BY MR. MUNOZ:
Q: I'm going to clarify a statement that he made regarding a distinction
between military. You mentioned a distinction between the military
proposed by Mr. Berzain versus other type that I think you called
mostrencos. What is the distinction?

A: What Banzer had were untrained troops. These are troops that are in
for a year. And Berzain was proposing elite troops, troops from the
countryside, from the Beni.
Q: And what, ifanything, did you see Mr. de Lozada do after Mr. Berzain's
comment?

A: It's what I said a moment ago.
Q. Which is what?
A. From my point of view, a species or-

MS. REYES: Objection, Your Honor. Speculation. It has already been
sustained.
THE COURT: Sustained. He can give his observations but not his
conclusion or opinion.
3/14/18 Trial Tr. at 91:12-93:9.
At the close of Plaintiffs' case, Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a). See DE 447-1; DE 484 at 5-33
(3/19/18 Trial Tr.). Defendants argued, inter alia, that because Plaintiffs offered no
evidence of a plan to kill civilians, "no reasonable jury could conclude that the
[decedents'] deaths were deliberated." DE 447-1 at 5. Although the Court expressed
reservations as to whether the jury could reasonably infer the existence of such a plan
from the evidence at the close of Plaintiffs' case, the Court reserved ruling on
11

Defendants' Motion. 3/19/18 Trial Tr. at 32:15-33:3. Defendants renewed their Motion
at the close of evidence, and the Court again, despite expressing "serious reservations
as to the sufficiency of the evidence relating to a plan to use lethal force against
civilians," reserved ruling so that the Court could "hear what the jury has to say, and
then, if need be, readdress th[e] motion." DE 488 at 169:7-20 (3/23/18 Trial. Tr.). 9
The Court submitted the case to the jury on March 26, 2018. DE 454. The jury
deliberated for six days, and on April 3, 2018, returned a verdict for Plaintiffs on their
TVPA claims, finding that decedents' deaths were extrajudicial killings by Bolivian
soldiers, and that Defendants were secondarily liable for those deaths because they
had command responsibility over the Bolivian soldiers who committed the killings. DE
474. 10 The Court deferred entering judgment pending resolution of the instant Motion.

Ill.

STANDARD
Defendants' Motion is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). Under

Rule 50(b), the Court is called upon to review the sufficiency of the evidence and
"should grant judgment as a matter of law when the plaintiff presents no legally
sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for him on a material element of
his cause of action." Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats. Inc., 420 F.3d 1272, 1278 (11th Cir.
2005). Conversely, the court should deny the motion "if the plaintiff presents enough
evidence to create a substantial conflict in the evidence on an essential element of the
plaintiffs case."

~

"In other words, the evidence must be sufficient so that a jury will

9

As explained in the Advisory Committee Notes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, "the court
may often wisely decline to rule on a motion for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of the
evidence" due to the fact that "a jury verdict for the moving party moots the issue and because a
preverdict ruling gambles that a reversal may result in a new trial that might have been avoided."
Advisory Committee Notes to 1991 Amendment to Rule 50.
·
10
Because the Court holds that Plaintiffs have failed to present evidence supporting a reasonable
inference that decedents' deaths were extrajudicial killings, it need not address Defendants' argument
that there is no evidence to support command responsibility liability for the killings.·

12

not ultimately rest its verdict on mere speculation and conjecture." Anthony v. Chevron
USA. Inc., 284 F.3d 578, 583 (5th Cir. 2002).
The court must consider all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party and grant that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences.
Cleveland v. Home Shopping Network, Inc., 369 F.3d 1189, 1192-93·(11th Cir. 2004).
"Nonetheless, a non-movant must present more than a mere scintilla of evidence." U.S.
Steel. LLC, v. Tieco. Inc., 261 F.3d 1275, 1288 (11th Cir. 2001). Additionally, a jury
verdict is not entitled to "the benefit of unreasonable inferences, or those at war with the
undisputed facts." United Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Garvey, 419 F.3d 743, 746 (8th Cir.
2005) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also McGreevy v. Daktronics, Inc., 156
F.3d 837, 840-41 (8th Cir. 1998) ("A reasonable inference is one which may be drawn
from the evidence without resort to speculation.") (internal quotation marks omitted).
Ultimately, judgment as a matter of law is appropriate if the "facts and inferences
point so overwhelmingly in favor of the movant that reasonable people could not arrive
at a contrary verdict." Bogle v. Orange Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, 162 F.3d 653, 656
(11th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). "While the court affords due
deference to the jury's findings, it is axiomatic that such findings are not automatically
insulated from review by virtue of the jury's careful and conscientious deliberation." Ice
Portal. Inc. v. VFM Leonardo. Inc., No. 09-60230-CIV, 2010 WL 2351463, at *5 (S.D.
Fla. June 11, 201 0). "Rule 50 'allows the trial court to remove cases or issues from the
jury's consideration when the facts are sufficiently clear that the law requires a particular
result."' Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440, 447 (2000) (internal quotation marks
omitted).

13

IV.

DISCUSSION
As noted above, Defendants argue that they are entitled to judgment as a matter

of law principally because Plaintiffs presented no evidence from which a reasonable jury
could conclude that decedents' deaths were deliberated, and therefore extrajudicial
killings under the TVPA. Defendants assert that because Plaintiffs introduced no
evidence regarding the identity of the individual shooters who killed the decedents,
much less evidence regarding the state of mind of these unknown shooters, Plaintiffs
needed to introduce evidence at trial of Defendants' alleged preconceived plan to kill
civilians in order for the jury to reasonably conclude that the decedents' deaths were
deliberated. And this, Defendants say, Plaintiffs failed to do. Defendants note that:
Plaintiffs did not utter the word "plan," or otherwise refer to a plan, in their
opening statement. Not a single witness has testified that President
Sanchez de Lozada and Minister Berzain planned or ordered innocent
civilians to be killed in order to deter protests in 2003. Indeed, during the
presentation of Plaintiffs' 29 witnesses, over eight trial days, the word
"plan" was spoken zero times in connection with a plan to kill innocent
civilians.
DE 447-1 at 3. Defendants contend that even Mr. Canelas did not testify about a plan,
but only that he heard a single comment from Defendant Berzain at a meeting more
than three years before the events at issue. ~at 3-4. Defendants point to the fact that
Mr. Canelas did not offer any admissible testimony that Defendant Lozada approved of
what Defendant Berzain had said at this meeting or indicated any agreement to a plan
to kill civilians. ~at 7. 11

11

Defendants also assert that "there is nothing in [Mr. Canelas'] testimony that Mr. Berzafn
contemplated using troops to kill unarmed protestors." DE 447-1 at 7. Defendants say that Mr. Canelas
testified only that people in Cochabamba opposed privatization, not that those people were unarmed and
protesting peaceful. 1Q,

14

Plaintiffs' response to this argument has evolved during the course of trial and
briefing the instant Motion. First, at the close of their case, Plaintiffs argued that based
on evidence that
[m]ultiple officers in multiple places on multiple days ordered soldiers to
shoot at unarmed civilians, without lawful justification, and [evidence that]
soldiers responded by shooting indiscriminately at civilians ... [t]he jury
could infer from this pattern that these orders were part of the Defendants'
plan to suppress popular protests with lethal military violence.
DE 448 at 12-13. Plaintiffs suggested that such an inference was supported by
evidence of the implementation of military policies known as the Republic Plan and the
Manual on the Use of Force after Defendants took office.

~at

2-4; 3/19/18 Trial Tr. at

18:21-19:25. Plaintiffs also argued that further support for the inference that the
shootings occurred as part of Defendants' alleged plan "can be drawn from the fact that
Defendants have not produced any evidence suggesting that they took any steps to
issue orders to protect civilians, to investigate civilian deaths, or to ensure that troops
under their command did not shoot and kill unarmed civilians." DE 448 at 13.
The problem for Plaintiffs, of course, is that evidence suggesting that shootings
occurred as part of a plan is not itself evidence that a plan existed in the first place.
Perhaps recognizing this fundamental flaw in their argument, Plaintiffs changed tack
. during their closing argument to the jury and-instead of arguing that they had
presented evidence that decedents' deaths resulted from the implementation of a plan
to kill civilians-implied that the testimony of Jose Elias Harb was sufficient evidence of
deliberateness. DE 489 at 178:17-179:2 (3/26/18 Trial Tr.). Mr. Harb was the Vice
Minister of Government in Defendant Lozada's administration and testified regarding,

inter alia, the debate within the administration as to whether to respond to the protests

15

engulfing the country "through the control of the State mechanisms" or negotiation. DE
500-7 at 164:11-20 (Harb Dep. Tr.). In his closing argument, Plaintiffs' counsel
referenced Mr. Harb's deposition testimony which had been played at trial and, after
reminding the jury that "[a] deliberated killing is one that is undertaken with studied
consideration and purpose," asked "[w]hat could be more studied, what could be greater
consideration than debate and dispute within the own government?" 3/26/18 Trial Tr. at
178:17-21.
Finally, in Plaintiffs' post-verdict response to the instant Motion, Plaintiffs theory
of deliberateness shifted yet again. See DE 510. This time, Plaintiffs argued that
evidence of a "widespread campaign against civilians" was alone sufficient to support
the jury's verdict.

&

at 16. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that

[t]he jury heard evidence of a widespread campaign against civilians-one
that spanned weeks and many locations, involved a·number of Bolivian
troops, and resulted in over 50 deaths and hundreds wounded. Such
evidence is sufficient to establish that each killing was deliberated as part
of that campaign.

&

In other words, Plaintiffs say that solely based on evidence that over fifty people

died in different locations on different days, it is reasonable to infer that all of those
people were killed deliberately.
Plaintiffs further argue that while this evidence of a "widespread campaign" is
"sufficient on its own," the jury could have also-reasonably inferred that decedents'
deaths were deliberated because of evidence that Defendants "were warned that an
aggressive response to the protests would lead to a 'Bolivian tragedy' and 'generate
deaths.' Yet Defendants insisted on their hardline approach.''

&

at 17. Plaintiffs say

that this evidence, coupled with evidence that Defendants "continued the military·

16

operations despite actual knowledge of widespread civilian casualties ... allows for the
jury's reasonable inference that Defendants intended, supported, or at the very least,
knew of the lethal military campaign against the civilian population and the inevitable
civilian deaths."

A.

kL.
The Absence of Evidence of a Plan to Kill Civilians Precludes TVPA
Liability in These Cases

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' failure to adduce evidence at trial of
Defendants' alleged preconceived plan to kill civilians-which had been central to their
case theory for the past five years of this litigation and to this Court's Summary
Judgment Order-compels the Court to grant Defendants' Motion. The evidence borne
out at trial, even when viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, simply does not
support a reasonable inference that the deaths in these cases meet the minimal
requirement for extrajudicial killing.
The Court does not lightly set aside the jury's verdict in these cases where each
Plaintiff has suffered a tragic loss and fought undeterred for justice-both in the United
States and Bolivia-for almost fifteen years. But the Court is nevertheless bound to
grant Defendants' Motion as it is not only clear that Plaintiffs have failed to present a
legally sufficient evidentiary basis for TVPA liability, but the evidence that Plaintiffs did
present at trial is strikingly similar to the allegations that the Eleventh Circuit previously
found insufficient earlier in this litigation.
1. Evidence of Multiple Shootings Resulting in a Total of Fifty Deaths
is Not Evidence of Extrajudicial Killings
As noted above, Plaintiffs have effectively abandoned their argument that the jury
could reasonably infer from the evidence the existence of plan to kill civilians. Plaintiffs'

17

chief argument now is that evidence of a "widespread campaign" involving Bolivian
soldiers being ordered to shoot and/or shooting indiscriminately at unarmed civilians on
multiple days and in multiple locations while there were no armed civilians in the
immediate vicinity, eventually resulting in over fifty deaths and hundreds wounded, is
sufficient on its own to show that each of the deaths at issue here "was deliberated as
part of that campaign." DE 510 at 16. To be certain, Plaintiffs did present evidence at
trial of indiscriminate shootings by the Bolivian military in the locations where the
decedents were killed. See,~. DE 500-1 at 26:20-21 (Aguilar Dep. Tr.) (troops
ordered to "shoot at anything that moved" in Warisata on September 20, 2003); DE 5004 at 29:23-32:14 (Castano Dep. Tr.) (military witnessed shooting a "rain of bullets" at
people running down an alleyway in El Alto on October 12, 2003); DE 480 at 37:17-38:4
(3/12/18 Trial Tr.) (soldiers seen "shooting in every direction" in the Southern Zone of La
Paz on October 13, 2003).
There is also evidence, however, that on these days in September and October
2003, not only was the country of Bolivia in crisis, but there were specific crises at each
of the locations where decedents were shot. For example, there is unrebutted evidence
that there was: (1) an ambush in Warisata on the military convoy transporting trapped
travelers on September 20, Aguilar Dep. Tr. at 68:24-69:13, Ex.1 002.3; (2) crippling
blockades in El Alto and La Paz in October, DE 478 at 86:5-87:11 (3/8/18 Trial Tr.),
3/12/18 Trial Tr. at 95:11-98:5; (3) attacks on October 12 in El Alto on tanker trucks
transporting gasoline to La Paz by protestors armed with rifles and dynamite, Ex.
1002.27; and (4) and an attack on the military on October 13 in the Southern Zone of La
Paz, 3/12/18 Trial Tr. at 130:12-131:10.

18

Thus, at minimum, the evidence establishes a plausible reason for the military's
presence and its use of some degree of force in each shooting location, meaning that
Plaintiffs' evidence of a"widespread campaign" is not evidence of a random campaign
of violence from which no reasonable inference can be drawn other than deliberate
killings. This is why Plaintiffs needed to present some evidence to the jury from which it
could reasonably infer (not merely speculate) that the shootings were more than
disproportionate reactions to civil unrest or attacks on the military, but were essentially
premeditated, or deliberated, killings. And this was the critical gap filled by evidence at
summary judgment of Defendants' preconceived plan to kill civilians. Plaintiffs' failure to
adduce that evidence at trial effectively lands them back where they were seven years
'

'

'

ago, when the Eleventh Circuit found legally insufficient their allegations of
indiscriminate shootings in multiple locations-shootings which Plaintiffs then described,
like they do now, as "part of a pattern and practice of systemic and widespread attacks"
against civilians.
Not only did the Eleventh Circuit find Plaintiffs' allegations of a pattern of
indiscriminate shootings, without more, insufficient to meet the minimal requirement for
extrajudicial killing, it also rejected another argument similar to one that Plaintiffs make
now: that the scale of the loss of life and injuries resulting from the events at issue
supports an inference that the killings were deliberate. Plaintiffs expressly cite the
"magnitude" of the attacks at issue as further support that an inference of
deliberateness is reasonable. DE 510 at 16. But the Eleventh Circuit, albeit operating

19

under a different legal framework, 12 specifically held that while this toll-then alleged to
be seventy deaths-"is sufficient to cause concern and distress," given the "mass
demonstrations, as well as the threat to the capital city and to public safety," it is not
sufficiently "widespread" or "systematic" to amount to "conduct that is carried out in an
extensive, organized, and deliberate way, and that is plainly unjustified." Mamani, 654
F.3d at 1156 (emphasis added).
Even if the Court were forced to examine this issue without the benefit of the
Eleventh Circuit's guidance, the Court would reach the same conclusion. Evidence that
approximately fifty individuals were killed, without more, is not evidence that those
individuals were killed deliberately. In support of their argument to the contrary,
Plaintiffs first cite the Court's Summary Judgment Order. DE 510 at 16 ("intent to kill
may be inferred from evidence that 'decedents' deaths resulted from the implementation
of Defendants' plan to use military force'") (quoting Mamani, _F. Supp. 3d_, 2018
WL 2013600, at *17). Critically, Plaintiffs omit the remainder of this sentence from the
Court's Summary Judgment Order, which discusses Defendants' alleged plan "to use
military force to kill unarmed civilians." Mamani, _·F. Supp. 3d_, 2018 WL
2013600, at *17 (emphasis added). While the evidence could of course support a
reasonable inference that Defendants planned to use military force to, for example,
restore order in Bolivia, it is not possible to infer-without resorting to speculation-that
Defendants planned to use such force to kill unarmed civilians. And again, evidence
that might suggest that civilians were killed according to an unlawful plan to kill civilians
is not itself evidence that such a plan existed.
12

The Eleventh Circuit was specifically examining whether Plaintiffs, in their 2008 Amended
Complaint, "pleaded facts sufficient to state a claim [under the ATS] for a crime against humanity
pursuant to established international law." Mamani, 654 F.3d at 1156.

20

Plaintiffs next rely on cases involving the 1998 United States embassy bombings
in Tanzania and Kenya and the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen. DE 510 at
16-17. In Owens v. Republic of Sudan, 864 F.3d 751, 770 (D.C. Cir. 2017), the D.C.
Circuit held that the 1998 embassy bombings "were 'deliberated' in that they involved
substantial preparation, meticulous timing, and coordination across multiple countries in
the region." Similarly, in Flanagan v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 190 F. Supp. 3d 138, 163
(D. D.C. 2016), the district court held that the "coordination and planning" required to
carry out the U.S.S. Cole bombing indicates that it was deliberated. 13 These cases are
unhelpful to Plaintiffs for obvious reasons.
For one, neither of these cases involves a set of facts from which competing
inferences could conceivably be drawn· regarding intent. Unlike here, where the jury
was tasked with deciding whether the evidence showed a democratically elected
government's response to civil unrest or a deliberated campaign to kill unarmed
civilians, in Owens and Flanagan, there was no possible inference to be drawn that the
terrorist bombings at issue were intended to serve some legitimate purpose. And the
"meticulous timing" and "coordination" that supported a finding of deliberateness in
Owens was based on facts showing "the near-simultaneous bombings of American
embassies in two different countries." 864 F.3d at 797. In contrast, it would be
unreasonable in the instant cases to infer, merely from the locations and timing of the
shootings-which the unrebutted evidence showed were dictated by external crises
outside of Defendants' control-or the number of troops involved, that the shootings

13

Owens and Flanagan were decided under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), which
waives a foreign states' immunity from suit in cases seeking money damages "against a foreign state for
personal injury or death that was caused by," inter alia, "extrajudicial killing." 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(1).
The FSIA utilizes the TVPA's definition of extrajudicial killing. See id. § 1605A(h)(7).

21

were the product of a similar degree of timing and coordination. Moreover, Plaintiffs'
argument that the killings at issue here must have involved substantial coordination and
planning presupposes the existence of a plan that required substantial coordination to
implement.
2. Evidence That Defendants Were Advised Against Using Military
Force and Continued to Employ the Military After Civilians Were
Killed is Not Evidence of Extrajudicial Killings
Plaintiffs next argue that evidence that (1) Defendants were warned against
employing the military but did so anyways and (2) "continued the military operations
despite actual knowledge of widespread civilian casualties" shows that decedents'
deaths were deliberated. DE 510 at 17-18. Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that this
evidence, when viewed in conjunction with Defendant Berzafn's comment in 2000 that,
once in power, Defendants would "kill [fifty], a hundred, a thousand," permits an
inference that "Defendants intended, supported, or at the very least, knew of the lethal
military campaign against the civilian population and the inevitable civilian deaths." lit,
at 17.
The first problem with this argument is that, as discussed above, there is no
evidence that the "military campaign" which Plaintiffs claim that Defendants "intended,
supported, or ... knew of' was a campaign to intentionally kill unarmed civilians. Thus,
Defendants' intent to launch this "campaign," or their knowledge or support of it, is
irrelevant to whether Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence of extrajudicial
killings. Mr. Canelas' testimony regarding Defendant Berz'afn's comment in 2000 does
not alter this conclusion.

22

Plaintiffs argue that because Defendant Lozada "did nothing to dispute or
disavow [Defendant] Berzain's unconscionable statement, the jury could have properly
inferred that he adopted it as well."

& at 17 n.5. But the only support Plaintiffs offer on

this point is an unpublished decision wherein the Eleventh Circuit held that, based on
evidence that the plaintiff "was asked several questions to which he did not respond,"
the trial court properly instructed the jury that it could consider whether plaintiff's
"silence was an admission of the truth of the statement." Elzubier v. Sony Music
Holdings, Inc., 564 Fed. Appx. 545, 549 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). Here, as
Defendants point out, there was no question put to Defendant Lozada, nor was he
silent. He said "[t]his is over" and adjourned the meeting. It would be unreasonable to
infer, as Plaintiffs suggest, that based o'n this response, Defendant Lozada "adopted"
Defendant Berzain's comment. It would be even more unreasonable to infer that,
because Defendant Lozada did not do more to "dispute or disavow" the comment, the
mobilization of the military three years later to respond to various crises was actually the
implementation of a plan to kill up to a thousand civilians. See, ~. Fenner v. Gen.
Motors Corp., 657 F.2d 647, 650-51 (5th Cir. Unit B June 1981) ("[A] jury may properly
reconstruct a series of events by drawing an inference upon an inference. The inference
relied upon, however, must be reasonable.") (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)). 14
Additionally, neither the evidence that there was debate within Defendant
Lozada's administration about the proper response to the issues facing the country nor

14

1n Bonnerv. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en bane), the Eleventh
Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, as that court existed on September 30, 1981, handed down by that court prior to close of business
on that date.
'

23

the evidence that Defendants were warned not to employ the military is evidence from
which a reasonable jury could infer that Defendants chose the path of military
intervention out of a desire to intentionally kill unarmed civilians. To reach such a
conclusion from the evidence presented at trial would be impossible without resort to
speculation. And, as a general matter, it would be unprecedented to conclude that,
because an elected official's decisions as to how to govern his or her country were
made over the opposition of others within the government and ultimately resulted in the
loss of civilian life, the loss of life was intentional. Likewise, Plaintiffs cite no authority
supporting their argument that Defendants' decision not to abandon military operations
after there had been civilian casualties supports an inference that those casualties, and
all subsequent casualties, were intentional. See Mamani, 654 F.3d at 1155 ('"Plaintiffs
point to no case where similar high-level decisions on military tactics and strategy
during a modern military operation have been held to constitute extrajudicial killing
under international law."') (alterations omitted) (quoting Belhas v. Ya'alon, 515 F.3d
1279, 1293 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (Williams, J., concurring)).
3. The Totality of the Evidence Does Not Support a Reasonable
Inference That Plaintiffs' Relatives Were Killed Deliberately
Finally, Plaintiffs argue that it is improper to "point to individual pieces of
evidence and suggest that, in isolation, each piece cannot support the verdict." DE 510
at 2. Rather, Plaintiffs say that the totality of the evidence presented allows for the
jury's reasonable inference that decedents' deaths were deliberated. But whether the
evidence is considered individually or cumulatively, the Court cannot conclude that such
an inference can reasonably be drawn.

24

At most, the evidence in these cases supports an inference that Defendants
responded to civil unrest in their country with a heavy hand, and that some unidentified
members of the Bolivian military fired upon civilians for unknown reasons. But that is
insufficient to impose TVPA liability on these Defendants. See Mamani, 654 F.3d at.
1155 (holding that shootings based on "individual motivations (personal reasons) not
linked to defendants" and those "compatible with accidental or negligent shooting[s]" are
not extrajudicial killings). Plaintiffs' failure to present any evidence supporting a
reasonable inference that decedents' deaths were "undertaken with studied
consideration and purpose" impels judgment as a matter of law in favor of Defendants.

&
V.

CONCLUSION
After Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed without prejudice seven years ago, they

amended their pleadings and included a new allegation that their relatives were killed
pursuant to a plan, conceived and implemented by Defendants, to deliberately kill
civilians in order to suppress opposition to Defendants' policies. Plaintiffs stressed the
importance of this new allegation in addressing deficiencies in their case previously
identified by the Eleventh Circuit, and based on this allegation-and a sworn statement
substantiating same-the Court held that Plaintiffs had put forth sufficient evidence to
present their case to a jury. At trial, however, Plaintiffs failed to present any evidence
supporting this critical allegation. And the evidence that Plaintiffs did present is legally
insufficient to support the jury verdict rendered in their favor. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendants' Renewed Motion for Judgment as
a Matter of Law [DE 501 in Case No. 07-22459; DE 475 in Case No. 08-21063] is

25

GRANTED. The Court will enter a separate Final Judgment in favor of Defendants
consistent with this Order.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County,
Florida, this 30th day of May, 2018.

Copies provided to counsel of record via CM/ECF

26