Doe

Doe v. Nestle, S.A.

Bad Law
748 F. Supp. 2d 1057·2010 WL 3969615·2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98991
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaSeptember 8, 2010CV 05-5133 SVW (JTLx)California44,784 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wilson, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND CO., NESTLE U.S.A., AND CAR-GILL INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

I. INTRODUCTION

On July 14, 2005, Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, and Global Exchange (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed this class action for damages and injunctive relief. On July 10, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. The amended complaint asserts causes of action under the Aien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 ; the Torture Victim Protection Act, Pub. L. 102-256, 106 Stat. 73 (1992); state-law unjust enrichment; and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.

Defendants are Nestle, S.A. (based in Switzerland), Nestle, U.S.A., and Nestle Cote d’Ivoire, S.A. (collectively “Nestle”); Cargill, Incorporated (“Cargill, Inc.”), Car-gill Cocoa (based in the United States), and Cargill West Africa, S.A. (collectively “Cargill”); and Archer Daniels Midland Company (“Archer Daniels Midland”) (collectively “Defendants”).

Defendants Nestle U.S.A., Cargill Inc., and Archer Daniels Midland have filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint for…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.