## Facts

- The Government of the Dominican Republic and its environmental ministry sued several U.S.-based corporate defendants and individuals over alleged coal-ash dumping in the Dominican Republic.
- The coal ash was allegedly generated by a coal-fired power plant operated in Puerto Rico and transported to the Dominican Republic for disposal.
- Plaintiffs alleged defendants arranged for disposal of approximately 30,000 tons of coal ash over about six months in coastal areas and waters, including near beaches.
- The complaint alleged the scheme involved improper waste handling and bribery to secure cooperation or avoid enforcement by local actors.
- Plaintiffs claimed environmental contamination, public-health harms (including deaths or serious injuries), and economic losses (including reduced tourism), plus governmental costs to address the damage.
- Plaintiffs filed in federal court in Virginia; defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint.

## Issues

1. Whether a foreign sovereign recognized by the United States has standing to sue in U.S. federal court for environmental, economic, and related injuries allegedly suffered within its territory.
2. Whether the complaint stated civil RICO claims by adequately alleging a pattern of racketeering activity (continuity) and that alleged predicate acts proximately caused plaintiffs’ injuries.
3. Whether Virginia choice-of-law rules required application of Dominican law to the non-RICO tort claims and whether Dominican law recognizes analogous causes of action.
4. Whether the act of state doctrine barred adjudication because Dominican authorities had issued a permit relating to coal-ash dumping.

## Decision

- The court held the Dominican Republic had standing to sue because it was a recognized foreign sovereign, not at war with the United States, and it plausibly alleged injury, traceability, and redressability.
- The court dismissed the civil RICO counts for failure to plead a pattern (insufficient continuity) and, alternatively, for failure to plead proximate cause.
- Applying Virginia conflicts rules, the court held Dominican law governed the tort claims because the alleged injury occurred in the Dominican Republic.
- The court denied dismissal of non-RICO claims to the extent Dominican law supplied causes of action analogous to nuisance, civil conspiracy, and aiding-and-abetting theories.
- The court did not treat the act of state doctrine as a pleading-stage bar to the surviving claims.

## Legal Principles

- A foreign sovereign recognized by the United States and not in a state of war may sue in U.S. courts if it satisfies Article III standing (injury in fact, traceability, and redressability).
- Civil RICO requires allegations supporting a “pattern of racketeering activity,” including continuity; a finite, time-limited scheme may fail continuity.
- Civil RICO also requires proximate causation; injuries that are indirect or too attenuated from the alleged predicate acts are not recoverable under RICO.
- In Virginia, lex loci delicti generally applies to tort claims, selecting the law of the place where the wrong and injury occurred.
- The act of state doctrine does not automatically bar claims merely because foreign governmental permitting is implicated; at the pleading stage, the presence of a permit may not preclude adjudication of alleged private misconduct.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the Dominican Republic to proceed on non-RICO tort theories governed by Dominican law but dismissed the civil RICO claims for failure to plead continuity and proximate cause, rejecting standing and act-of-state arguments as bases for dismissal at the motion-to-dismiss stage.


Gov't of the Dominican Republic v. AES Corp., 466 F. Supp. 2d 680 (E.D. Va. 2006)