John Doe I v. Nestle, USA

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN DOE I; JOHN DOE II; JOHN DOE No. 10-56739 III, individually and on behalf of proposed class members; GLOBAL D.C. No.

EXCHANGE, 2:05-CV-05133-

Plaintiffs-Appellants, SVW-JTL

v.

ORDER AND

NESTLE USA, INC.; ARCHER OPINION

DANIELS MIDLAND COMPANY;

CARGILL INCORPORATED COMPANY;

CARGILL COCOA,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 2, 2013—Pasadena, California

Filed September 4, 2014

Before: Dorothy W. Nelson, Kim McLane Wardlaw, and Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges.

Order; Opinion by Judge D.W. Nelson; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Rawlinson DOE V. NESTLE USA, INC.

SUMMARY*

Alien Tort Statute

The panel withdrew its order filed December 19, 2013, and appearing at 738 F.3d 1048, and replaced the order with an opinion reversing and vacating the district court’s dismissal of an action under the Alien Tort Statute.

The action was…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I do not object to remanding this case to afford the Plaintiffs an opportunity to further amend their Complaint in an attempt to state a cause of action under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), as recently interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 1659 , 185 L.Ed.2d 671 (2013). I doubt that their effort will be successful in view of their prior candid acknowledgment in their Opening Brief on appeal that “they do not currently possess facts sufficient to support the district court’s standard that Defendants specifically intended the human rights violations at issue in this case....” Nevertheless, because I cannot say with certitude that any attempt to further amend the Complaint would be futile, I voice no objection to a remand on that basis.

We all agree that the practice of engaging in child slave labor is reprehensible, indefensible, and morally abhorrent. Indeed, if that were the issue we were called upon to decide, this would be an easy case. Instead, we must decide who bears legal responsibility for the atrocities inflicted upon these Plaintiffs, forced into slave labor as…

ORDER

The order filed December 19, 2013, and appearing at 738 F.3d 1048 , is withdrawn, Carver v. Lehman, 558 F.3d 869, 878-79 (9th Cir.2009), and is replaced by the opinion filed concurrently with this order. Our prior order may not be cited as precedent to any court. Moreover, with the original order withdrawn, we deem the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc moot. The parties may file a petition for rehearing and rehearing en bane with respect to the opinion filed together with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

OPINION

The plaintiffs in this case are former child slaves who were forced to harvest cocoa in the Ivory Coast. They filed claims under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) against defendants Nestle USA, Inc., Archer Daniels Midland Company, Cargill Incorporated Company, and Cargill Cocoa, alleging that the defendants aided and abetted child slavery by providing assistance to Ivorian farmers.

The district court dismissed their complaint, finding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We reverse, vacate, and remand for further proceedings.

I. Background

The use of child slave labor in the Ivory Coast is a humanitarian tragedy.…