## Facts

- Seven Guatemalan citizens who were former officers of SITRABI, a trade union representing workers at a Guatemalan banana plantation, sued Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc. and its Guatemalan subsidiary, Bandegua.
- During collective-bargaining negotiations, Bandegua terminated hundreds of workers, and SITRABI filed a labor complaint in Guatemala.
- Plaintiffs alleged Del Monte personnel met with a private armed security force to plan violent action against union leaders.
- On October 13, 1999, approximately 200 heavily armed men arrived at SITRABI’s headquarters and allegedly held two plaintiffs hostage, threatened to kill them, and pushed them with guns.
- Plaintiffs alleged other union leaders were lured, abducted, or forced to the headquarters and detained; all were allegedly held for more than eight hours and not permitted to leave.
- Two plaintiffs alleged they were compelled at gunpoint to publicly denounce the union, declare the dispute over, and sign resignation forms.
- Plaintiffs later sued in federal court asserting claims under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), along with state-law claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged actionable ATS and TVPA violations based on torture and related international-law norms committed by a private security force allegedly acting at a corporation’s direction.
2. Whether a stand-alone claim for cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment satisfied Sosa’s requirement that an ATS norm be specific, universal, and obligatory.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit treated the district court’s dismissal without prejudice as a final appealable judgment because plaintiffs appealed rather than amending.
- The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.
- Torture-based claims and claims tied to well-defined, historically recognized international-law norms were held sufficient at the pleading stage under the ATS and (to the extent properly alleged) the TVPA.
- A stand-alone ATS claim for cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment was dismissed because the asserted norm was not defined with the required specificity under Sosa.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the surviving claims.

## Legal Principles

- ATS causes of action are limited to violations of international-law norms that are accepted by the civilized world and defined with specificity comparable to paradigms historically recognized at the ATS’s founding.
- Torture is a well-established, specifically defined violation of the law of nations and can support ATS liability when adequately pleaded.
- Courts must exercise restraint in recognizing new ATS claims; broadly framed or indeterminate norms may fail Sosa’s specificity requirement.
- The TVPA provides a cause of action for torture (and extrajudicial killing) committed under color of foreign law; at the pleading stage, courts assess whether the complaint plausibly alleges the requisite state involvement or official character.
- Corporate defendants are not dismissed solely due to corporate status where the complaint plausibly alleges direction, participation, or responsibility for conduct violating sufficiently definite international-law norms.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that plaintiffs plausibly alleged torture-related ATS/TVPA claims based on an armed group’s hostage-taking and threats allegedly carried out to suppress union leadership, but it rejected a separate ATS claim for cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment because the asserted norm lacked the definitional precision required by Sosa, and it remanded for further proceedings on the surviving claims.


Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc., 416 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2005)