KRISHANTHI et al v. RAJARATNAM et al
Filing
94
OPINION. Signed by Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh on 6/30/11. (jd, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
:
:
KARUNAMUNIGE CHAMILA
:
KRISHANTHI, et al,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
RAJAKUMARA RAJARATNAM, et al. :
:
Defendants.
Hon. Dennis M. Cavanaugh
OPINION
Civil Action No. 09-CV-05395 (DMC-JAD)
DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH, U.S.D.J.:
This matter comes before the Court upon a second motion to dismiss by Defendant Tamils
Rehabilitation Organization, Inc. (“TRO-USA” or “Defendant”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78, no oral argument was heard.
After considering the submissions of all parties, and for the reasons set forth below, it is the decision
of this Court that Defendant’s motion is denied.
I.
BACKGROUND 1
TRO-USA was incorporated in 1994 under the laws of Maryland. In its August 26, 2010
Opinion, this Court granted TRO-USA’s motion to dismiss in part and dismissed several counts of
Plaintiffs’ Complaint. However, this Court denied TRO-USA’s motion to dismiss with regard to
Count One,2 which alleges TRO-USA is liable, pursuant to the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”) for the
1
2
These facts were taken from the parties’ respective submissions.
This Court also denied TRO-USA’s motion to dismiss with regard to Count Seven
(intentional infliction of emotional distress), but that Count is not at issue here.
deaths and injuries caused by five specific bombings by the Liberation Tamil Tigers Eelam
(“LTTE”) that occurred in Sri Lanka in 2007 and 2008. The Complaint alleges that TRO-USA is
directly responsible for those bombings because it allegedly functioned as a “front group” for the
collection of funds for the LTTE. In denying TRO-USA’s motion to dismiss Count One, this Court
considered whether a corporation could be sued under the ATS, and found that corporate liability
does in fact exist.
II.
DISCUSSION
TRO-USA has moved a second time to dismiss Count One of the Complaint, arguing that
this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because a corporation cannot be liable under the ATS.3
TRO-USA’s entire argument is based on the recent Second Circuit decision in Kiobel, et al. v. Royal
Dutch Petroleum, et al., 621 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010), which came down after this Court’s August
26, 2010 Opinion. In Kiobel, the Second Circuit held that the scope of liability under the ATS does
not extend to corporations. Id. at 145.
In response, Plaintiff puts forth several arguments as to why the Second Circuit’s decision
in Kiobel is flawed and incorrect. However, it is not up to this Court to determine the soundness of
the Second Circuit decision, nor does this Court have any reason to address such issues. The Kiobel
decision is not binding on this Court, and at most it represents a circuit split on the issue of corporate
liability under the ATS.
This Court previously considered and rejected TRO-USA’s argument that corporate liability
3
Plaintiffs challenge the propriety of the instant motion, and argue that the issue of
whether corporate liability is available under the ATS is a merits-based question, not one of
subject matter jurisdiction. For the purposes of the instant motion, this Court assumes, without
deciding, that the issue is properly considered on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
2
is unavailable under the ATS. Despite TRO-USA’s urging, this Court is not persuaded that it must
now find there is no corporate liability under the ATS simply because that was the result reached by
the Second Circuit. In its previous Opinion, this Court stated: “In the absence of Third Circuit
precedent, in accordance with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Eleventh Circuit Court
of Appeals, this Court concludes that to the extent private individuals are subject to liability under
the ATS, corporations are equally subject to liability.” At the outset, it is worth noting that the
Second Circuit precedent this Court relied on dealt with the issue of individual liability, and the
Eleventh Circuit precedent was on the issue of corporate liability. Regardless, as noted above, the
Kiobel decision represents a circuit split and does not invalidate the Eleventh Circuit’s finding that
corporate liability exists under the ATS. TRO-USA would have this Court disregard the Eleventh
Circuit decisions affirming corporate liability under the ATS because, in TRO-USA’s view, the
Eleventh Circuit “has not conducted a careful analysis” of the issue, but this Court is wholly
unconvinced.
III.
CONCLUSION
In sum, TRO-USA has not persuaded this Court that its prior decision regarding corporate
liability under the ATS should be reversed. Accordingly, TRO-USA’s motion for dismissal for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction is denied. An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.
Dennis M. Cavanaugh
Dennis M. Cavanaugh, U.S.D.J.
Dated:
Original:
cc:
June 30 , 2011
Clerk
All Counsel of Record
Hon. J.A. Dickson, U.S.M.J.
File
3
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?