## Facts

- Colombian union leaders, relatives, and the coal miners’ union SINTRAMIENERGETICA sued an Alabama-based coal company, its Colombian subsidiary, and corporate officers.
- Plaintiffs alleged that company officials in Colombia, with knowledge of U.S.-based executives, paid Colombian paramilitary forces to torture and kill union leaders.
- Plaintiffs asserted claims under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) for torture, extrajudicial killing, and related violations, including an aiding-and-abetting theory tied to alleged war-crime killings.
- Plaintiffs also asserted claims under the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) for torture and extrajudicial killing, plus wrongful-death and common-law tort theories.
- The district court consolidated related actions, granted partial summary judgment on many claims, and allowed a narrowed ATS aiding-and-abetting claim to proceed to trial.
- After trial, the jury returned a verdict for the defendants on the remaining ATS claim.
- Plaintiffs appealed summary judgment and multiple discovery/evidentiary rulings, including exclusion of late-disclosed witnesses and certain expert evidence; defendants cross-appealed on subject-matter jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether federal courts had subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims under the ATS and TVPA, including challenges that corporations and aiding-and-abetting theories are not actionable and that the TVPA displaced ATS remedies for extrajudicial killing.
2. Whether the district court properly granted partial summary judgment on ATS, TVPA, wrongful-death, and related tort claims, including the TVPA “color of law” requirement and standing for wrongful-death claims.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in case management, including enforcing discovery deadlines, denying continuances, excluding late-disclosed witnesses, and excluding noncompliant expert testimony.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in full.
- The court held the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction under the ATS and TVPA.
- The court rejected arguments that ATS/TVPA claims categorically exclude corporate defendants and that aiding-and-abetting liability is unavailable under these statutes in the circumstances presented.
- The court held the TVPA did not eliminate otherwise cognizable ATS claims for extrajudicial killing.
- The court affirmed partial summary judgment, including dismissal of TVPA claims for failure to show conduct under color of foreign law, dismissal of certain wrongful-death claims for lack of proper standing, and dismissal of Alabama tort claims based on application of lex loci delicti to injuries occurring in Colombia.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying late amendments, continuances, and in excluding late-disclosed witness testimony and inadequately disclosed expert testimony.
- The jury verdict for defendants on the remaining ATS aiding-and-abetting claim stood.

## Legal Principles

- The ATS confers federal jurisdiction over civil actions by aliens for torts committed in violation of the law of nations when the asserted norm is sufficiently definite and universally accepted.
- The TVPA creates a distinct federal cause of action for torture and extrajudicial killing and includes a “color of law” requirement tied to foreign state authority.
- Corporate defendants are not categorically exempt from ATS/TVPA claims where the governing law and pleaded norms focus on the prohibited conduct rather than the actor’s juridical form.
- Aiding-and-abetting liability may be available under the ATS when tied to a clearly established international-law norm and supported by an adequate legal and factual basis.
- The TVPA does not necessarily preclude ATS claims addressing the same general subject matter if the ATS claim independently satisfies the requirements for recognizing an actionable international-law norm.
- District courts have broad discretion to enforce scheduling orders, discovery deadlines, and disclosure rules; appellate review of evidentiary and discovery rulings is deferential and requires a showing of reversible error and prejudice.
- Under Alabama choice-of-law rules, lex loci delicti applies substantive law of the place of injury, limiting application of Alabama tort law to injuries occurring abroad.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a defense verdict and pretrial rulings in human-rights litigation arising from alleged paramilitary violence in Colombia, holding that ATS/TVPA jurisdiction existed and that corporate and aiding-and-abetting theories were not categorically barred, while also upholding dismissal of claims failing statutory elements and approving strict enforcement of discovery, disclosure, and scheduling requirements.


Romero v. Drummond Co., 552 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2008)