Luis Mujica v. Airscan Inc.

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

For over 11 years, plaintiffs 1 have been seeking justice in our courts for the role that two U.S. corporations allegedly played in atrocities committed in the Republic of Colombia. On December 13, 1998, one or more cluster bombs were dropped from a Colombian Air Force helicopter onto the village of Santo Domingo, killing 17 unarmed civilians, including six children, and wounding 25 others. Plaintiff Mario Galvis Gelvez (“Galvis”) was seriously injured in the raid, and his wife, daughter, and niece were among the massacred. Although the pilot and co-pilot of the helicopter were convicted of murder and sentenced to 30 years in prison, plaintiff Galvis received only $55,800, and each of his sons received only $21,762, in “symbolic” compensation from the Colombian government. To date, defendant Occidental Petroleum Corporation (“Occidental”), a California corporation, and defendant AirScan, Inc. (“AirScan”), a Florida corporation, have not been required to answer for their alleged participation in the planning and execution of the attack on Santo Domingo.

Instead, plaintiffs’ claims against these U.S. corporations, brought pursuant to the…

*584 OPINION

This suit arises out of the 1998 bombing of a Colombian village by members of the Colombian Air Force (CAF). Plaintiffs, 1 citizens and former residents of Colombia, brought suit in California against two U.S.headquartered corporations, Occidental Petroleum and AirSean, for their alleged complicity in the bombing. In two opinions issued in 2005, the district court first refused to dismiss the case on grounds of forum non conveniens and international comity, Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 381 F.Supp.2d 1134 (C.D.Cal.2005) (“Mujica I”), but then granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss all of the claims under the political question doctrine. Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 381 F.Supp.2d 1164 (C.D.Cal.2005) (“Mujica II”).

In a prior appeal, we declined to decide the issues presented and remanded the case to the district court for two purposes: first, “to consider whether a prudential exhaustion requirement applies in this case, and if so, whether that requirement bars any claims in this case,” and, second, to “consider the effect, if any,” of two Colombian court opinions related to the bombing. Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 564 F.3d 1190 , 1192 (9th…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS ALBERTO GALVIS MUJICA, on No. 10-55515 behalf of himself and as representative of the Estates of D.C. No. Tereza Mujica Hernan, Edilma Leal 2:03-cv-02860- Pacheco and Johanny Hernandez GW-JWJ Becerra; MARIO GALVIS GELVEZ, on behalf of himself, individually, and as heir of the decedents Tereza Mujica Hernandez, Edilma Leal Pacheco and Johanny Hernandez Becerra; JOHN MARIO GALVIS MUJICA, through his guardian ad litem and on behalf of himself, individually, and as heir of the decedents Tereza Mujica Hernandez, Edilma Leal Pacheco and Johanny Hernandez Becerra, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

AIRSCAN INC.,

Defendant-Appellant, ____________________________

OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM

CORPORATION,

Defendant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Movant.

LUIS ALBERTO GALVIS MUJICA, on No. 10-55516 behalf of himself and as representative of the Estates of D.C. No. Tereza Mujica Hernan, Edilma Leal 2:03-cv-02860- Pacheco and Johanny Hernandez GW-JWJ Becerra; MARIO GALVIS GELVEZ, on behalf of himself, individually, and as heir of the decedents…