Saldana v. Occidental Petroleum, No. 12-55484 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs, family members of union leaders killed in Colombia by members of the Colombian National Army's 18th Brigade, filed suit against Occidental, alleging several causes of action, including three under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350, contending that Occidental should be liable for the 18th Brigade's war crimes, crimes against humanity, and assorted torts arising out of the murder of the union leaders. The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) because it raised nonjusticiable political questions. The court affirmed, concluding that the facts of this case cannot be framed in such a way that severs the tie between the United States' and Occidental's funding of the CNA and the 18th Brigade. Plaintiffs' allegations are manifestly irreconcilable with the State Department's human rights certifications to Congress and the court remains bound by the Supreme Court's holding in Oetjen v. Cent. Leather Co. and Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc.
Court Description: Political Question Doctrine. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an action brought under the Alien Tort Statute and California tort law by family members of three union leaders killed in Colombia in August 2004 by members of the Colombian National Army’s 18th Brigade. Plaintiffs contended that Occidental Petroleum Corp. should be held liable for the 18th Brigade’s alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity, and assorted torts arising out of the 18th Brigade’s murder of the three union leaders. Plaintiffs’ theory was that Occidental, via its Colombian subsidiary, provided funding to the 18th Brigade, which gave Occidental operational control over the 18th Brigade, knowing full well that the 18th Brigade was committing murders and other human rights abuses. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) on the ground that it raised nonjusticiable political questions. The panel concluded that plaintiffs’ claims were inextricably bound to the inherently political question of the propriety of the United States’ decision to provide $99 million worth of training to the 18th Brigade at the same time and for the same purpose as Occidental allegedly providing $6.3 million. Concurring, Judge Trott wrote separately to augment the background material that demonstrated that the complaint raised nonjusticiable political questions, thus depriving the courts of jurisdiction to entertain it.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.