1 / 40

Class Actions and Mass Tort Litigation in a Global Context Prof. Linda S. Mullenix

Class Actions and Mass Tort Litigation in a Global Context Prof. Linda S. Mullenix. Human Rights Class Actions in American Courts. Human Rights Class Actions in American Courts. Questions and Themes :

zhen
Télécharger la présentation

Class Actions and Mass Tort Litigation in a Global Context Prof. Linda S. Mullenix

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Class Actions and Mass Tort Litigation in a Global ContextProf. Linda S. Mullenix Human Rights Class Actions in American Courts

  2. Human Rights Class Actions in American Courts • Questions and Themes: • Theme: Problems and difficulties in pursuing group human rights violations in international institutions • Question: Are American courts more receptive to resolving group human rights violations? • Question: Is the American class action rule suitable for resolving human rights violations?

  3. Human Rights Class Actions in American Courts • Questions and Themes: • Question: Has the American class action rule proven effective to address human rights violations? • In what cases have class actions been approved? • In what cases have class actions been rejected? • Question:What are the bases for authorizing human rights class action litigation in the United States? • What is the scope of that jurisdiction?

  4. Human Rights Class Actions in American Courts • Jurisdiction for Human Rights Litigation in the United States (possible bases): • Federal diversity jurisdiction • Jurisdiction over aliens (alienage jurisdiction) • Federal question jurisdiction • New possibility: class action jurisdiction created by Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 • Alien Torts Claim Statute • Torture Victims Protection Act

  5. Alien Tort Claims Statute

  6. Human Rights Class Actions in American Courts • Jurisdiction for Human Rights Litigation in the United States (possible bases): • Alien Tort Claim Statute (ATCS), 28 U.S.C.A. sec. 1350 • Specific jurisdiction originally granted in Judiciary Act of 1789 • ATCS provides jurisdiction over: • “any civil action by an alien for tort only, committed in violation of the laws of nations or a treaty of the United States.”

  7. Human Rights Class Actions in American Courts • Alien Tort Claim Statute (ATCS), 28 U.S.C.A. sec. 1350 • Little use made of statute for nearly two hundred years • Revitalized in Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980): • Jurisdiction found under ATCS • Suit by two Paraguayan citizens against Paraguayan police official • Accused of acts of torture in Paraguay

  8. Human Rights Class Actions in American Courts • Alien Tort Claim Statute (ATCS), 28 U.S.C.A. sec. 1350 • Applied in Doe v. Karadzic, 866 F. Supp. 734 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) • Jurisdiction found under ATCS • ATCS extends to alleged violations of international law committed by private individuals acting under color of state law

  9. Human Rights Class Actions in American Courts • Alien Tort Claim Statute (ATCS), 28 U.S.C.A. sec. 1350 • Does not define what constitutes a “violation of the law of nations” • Does identify who is a proper defendant • Actions brought against person who were officials at time of actions complained, or, • Persons acting under color of foerign authority • Foreign government itself cannot be sued under ATCS (barred by Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act)

  10. Human Rights Class Actions in American Courts • Alien Tort Claim Statute (ATCS), 28 U.S.C.A. sec. 1350 • Filartiga decision limited application of ATCS to “universally recognized norms of international law” • Genocide, slavery, torture, murder • List not exclusive

  11. Human Rights Class Actions in American Courts • Alien Tort Claim Statute (ATCS), 28 U.S.C.A. sec. 1350 • International law violations cognizable under the ATCS: • Repeated acts of terror and violence so systematic and gross as to violate rights of association, expression and political participation • Administration of experimental medication • Administration of lower doses of medication than standard of care, for research purposes, without informed consent • Forced labor, slave trading • Murder, rape • Piracy • Genocide

  12. Human Rights Class Actions in American Courts • Alien Tort Claim Statute (ATCS), 28 U.S.C.A. sec. 1350 • Alleged violations not within the ATCS: • Seizure of citizen’s property • Causing environmental harms (even if detrimental to human life, health, and development)

  13. Torture Victim Protection Act

  14. Human Rights Class Actions in American Courts • Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA): • Enacted by Congress 1992 • Implements 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment • Establishes federal jurisdiction over types of claims previously brought under ATCS • Guarantees torture victims (and like acts) a cause of action • Does not specify who is proper plaintiff or defendant • Applies only to individuals, not corporations

  15. Human Rights Class Actions in American Courts • Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) • Persons accountable under the Act: • Persons acting “under actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation” • Makes persons liable for damages to any person subjected to torture (or their legal representative or survivor) • Foreign states or instrumentalities not proper defendants • Liability under TVPA narrower than under ATCS • Limited to acts by individuals under authority of a foreign nation • Ten year statute of limitations • Requirement of exhaustion of local remedies

  16. Human Rights Class Actions in American Courts • Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) • Other aspects: • Litigants frequently invoke both the ATCS and the TVPA • Both compensatory and puntive damages have been awarded for violations • Commentators suggest TVPA supplements ATCS: • Allows courts to recognize causes of action under the ATCS for customary international law violations other than torture and extrajudicial killing

  17. Human Rights Class Actions in American Courts • Other Possible Bases for U.S. Jurisdiction Over Human Rights Violations: • Direct reliance on treaties by human rights plaintiffs is rare • Private legal claims could be predicated in customary international • Prospects even less likely

  18. Case Studies: Hilao v. Estate of Ferdinand Marcos Doe v. Karadzic

  19. Case Study: Hilao v. Estate of Marcos • Factual Basis: • Plaintiffs: Philippine nationals • Defendant: Estate of Ferdinand Marcos (former president of the Phillipines) • Allegations: human rights violations committed against them or their decedents • Venue: U.S. federal district court in Hawaii • Legal basis: violations of Alien Tort Claim Act and Torture Victim Protection Act • Procedural basis: Rule 23(b)(3) class action

  20. Case Study: Hilao v. Estate of Marcos • Class definition: • All civilian citizens of the Philippines who, between 1972 and 1986, were tortured, summarily executed, or disappeared by Philippine military or paramilitary groups • Class included survivors of deceased members • Over 10,000 persons in this class

  21. Case Study: Hilao v. Estate of Marcos • Proceedings: • Federal district court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) damage class action • Court implemented a three-phase trial • Case tried to the jury in three phases • Jury awarded $766 million in compensatory damages • Jury awarded $1.2 billion in exemplary (punitive damages) • Estate appealed judgment, class certification, and trial plan

  22. Case Study: Hilao v. Estate of Marcos • Questions (on appeal): • Did the district court have jurisdiction over this human rights litigation? • Did the district court properly certify the class action under Rule 23(b)(3)? • Did the three-phase trial plan violate the Defendant’s due process rights? • Did the court abuse its discretion in ordering a three-phase trial? • Did the use of statistical sampling in determining compensatory damages violate due process?

  23. Case Study: Hilao v. Estate of Marcos • Appellate Court Decision – Jurisdiction of the court: • Jurisdiction of the court upheld under the Alien Torts Claim Act • Subject matter jurisdiction appropriately exercised even though actions of Marcos (causing torture and murder) occurred outside the United States • Alien Torts Claim Act does not contain statute of limitations

  24. Case Study: Hilao v. Estate of Marcos • Appellate court decision: class certification: • Class certification upheld • Definition of class upheld: • Class definition sufficiently definite, class size limited (approximately 10,000 claimants) • 8,538 claims found valid and awarded damages • Typicality (upheld): • Whether compensable injury exists for particular class member – question is virtually identical in each case

  25. Case Study: Hilao v. Estate of Marcos • Appellate decision: trifurcated trial plan: • Trial plan upheld: • Phase I – liability trial • Three day jury trial on liability • 22 direct plaintiffs and the class • Verdict against the Estate • Phase II – exemplary (punitive damages) • Court orders notice to class members • Court orders proof of claim form to opt into class • 10,000 claims forms received • Two day trial on exemplary damages • Jury returns verdict $1.2 billion against estate

  26. Case Study: Hilao v. Estate of Marcos • Trial plan upheld: • Phase III – Compensatory damages • Special master appointed • Selected 137 random cases for development and testimony • Random cases form basis for extrapolating damages to larger class • Statistical methodolgy and evidence presented to jury • Seven day jury trial on compensatory damages • Jury returns $766 million compensatory damage award

  27. Case Study: Hilao v. Estate of Marcos • Appellate decision: trifurcated trial plan: • Reasons for upholding trial plan: • District judge did not abuse discretion • Compensatory damage phase presented more complex questions than exemplary damage phase • Need for special master to take individual testimony in the Philippines • Procedure followed by district court allowed in Texas courts in asbestos litigation (providing a precedent)(Jenkins v. Raymark)

  28. Case Study: Hilao v. Estate of Marcos • Appellate decision: trifurcated trial plan: • Methodology for Determining Compensatory Damages: • Court upholds use of statistical sampling • 137 randomly selected claims would achieve 95% statistical probability that same percentage would be valid among totality of claims filed • Sample included torture, summary execution, and disappearance claims • Depositions taken of 137 selected claims • Recommended damages in 131 of thos claims • Applied American, Philippine, and international law on damages

  29. Case Study: Hilao v. Estate of Marcos • Average claims values based on statistical sampling: • Torture claims: $51,719 each • Summary execution: $128,515 each • Disappearance: $107,853 each • Total of averages: • $767,491,493 compensatory damages • Jury heard testimony from special master, statistical expert, accepted most claims, rejected others, allowed others

  30. Case Study: Hilao v. Estate of Marcos • Appellate decision upholding trial plan: • Upholds use of methodology • Upholds use of statistical sampling • Time & judicial resources to try nearly 10,000 claims would make resolution impossible • Individual trials wasteful • Methodology justified by extraordinary unusual nature of the case • Adversarial resolution of each class member’s claims would impose insurmountable practical hurdles • Would clog docket of district court

  31. Case Study: Hilao v. Estate of Marcos On due process concerns: “Due process, unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time, place, and circumstances.”

  32. Case Study: Doe v. Karadzic

  33. Case Study: Doe v. Karadzic • Factual Basis: • Class action seeking compensatory and punitive damages for acts of genocide, muder, rape torture & other torts committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina • Defendants: Radovan Karadzic and individuals under his command • Federal district court: certified mandatory Rule 23(b)(1)(B) class action (“limited fund” class action) • Two groups of Plaintiffs: • Doe plaintiffs: moved for approval of notice plan • Kadic plaintiffs: moved to decertify the class

  34. Case Study: Doe v. Karadzic • Class definition: • “All people who suffered injury as a result of rape, genocide, summary execution, arbitrray detention, disappearance, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment inflicted by Bosnian-Serb Forces under the command and control of defendant between April 1992 and the present.”

  35. Case Study: Doe v. Karadzic • Questions: • Was the Karadzic class action properly certified? • Is this class action different than the Hilao class action? In what ways? • Do these differences suggest a different outcome for class certification? • Should one group of class Plaintiffs be able to impede the interests of other class Plaintiffs? • Should the class action be upheld or de-certified? • What is the court’s reasoning for de-certifying the class?

  36. Case Study: Doe v. Karadzic • Court’s decision: • De-certifies the class action • Doe plaintiffs’ request for notice plan is mooted by decision to de-certify the class • Decertification justified by intervening U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (1999) • Karadzic class does not meet the requirements for a “limited fund” class action under Ortiz decision

  37. Case Study: Doe v. Karadzic • U.S. Supreme Court Ortiz decision: • Standards for certification of a Rule 23(b)(1)(B) limited fund class action: • Paradigm suit is one in which claims are made by numerous persons against a fund insufficeint to satisfy all claims • Mandatory treatment under limited fund rationale confined to narrow category of cases • Must provide specific evidence supporting existence of a limited fund • Must demonstrate that claims will exhaust the fund and the defendants’ assets • Must demonstrate that fund will be distributed equitably across all class members

  38. Case Study: Doe v. Karadzic • Did Proposed Karadzic class action satisfy the requirements for a limited fund class action? • No: No proof of limited fund • Defendant not corporation with limited liability or a fixed and limited fund in danger of depletion • Any judgment against defendant would be enforcebale for at least twenty years • Any assets subsequently discovered or earned by defendant would be subject to judgment • Plaintiffs unable to demonstrate that “substantial probability” that Defendant would be unable to pay claims over life of the judgment

  39. Final Questions: • Why do the courts uphold the Hilao class action, but reject the Karadzic class action? • Is the Hilaoclass action a good model for class treatment of human rights claims? • Do the distinctions in the class categories make sense? • Should the Karadzic class action have been allowed to proceed?

  40. Fine

More Related