More Early ATS cases part 3

In Aboudin v. Martin Oil Serv. Inc, 475 F.2d 142 (7th Cir. 1973) plaintiffs were four Nigerian citizens, who signed a contract with Alpha-Niger enterprises providing for training in the U.S. with Martin Oil Company and subsequent employment in Nigeria. Plaintiffs claim jurisdiction under a number of statutes including 28 USC 1350. The court held that on its face the plaintiffs' claim was for breach of contract and that even with the Fraud and deceit allege it does not rise to a claim violating international law.

In IIT v. Vencap, Ltd., 519 F.2d 1001 (2d Cir. 1975) plaintiff is a Luxemburg based trust fund bringing action against Vencap, Ltd for fraud, conversion and corporate waste. In this case there was no allegation of a treaty violation or that the statute should be read expansively to include the Eight Amendment (Thou shalt not steal) as part of the law of nations. The court determined that 28 U.S.C. 1350 did not provide grounds for jurisdiction.

In Nguyen Da Yen v. Kissinger, 528 F.2d 1194 (9th Cir. 1975) plaintiffs were a class action against the Immigration and Nationality Services claiming that as babylifted Vietnamese children, being held in detention from anyone but their parents was a violation of their human rights and the fifth amendment. The court was unwilling to determine the jurisdictional claim under 28 U.S.C. 1350 as they were not briefed on the topic. However, the court does say that illegation detention, transportation and siezure of an alien against his will may violate international law.

In Dreyfus v. Von Finck, 534 F.2d 24 (2d. Cir. 1976) the plaintiff a Swiss citizen brought suit against German nationals for the theft of property in Nazi Germany in 1938. The court held in this case there was no violation of a treaty that gave rise to the individual defendants or that a violation of international law occurred when the aggrieved parties are nationals of the acting state. The court recognized that the actions were likely tortious but did not rise to a violation of the law of nations. (This case has been disavowed by Filartiga and disagreed with by Garb - both to be discussed later.)

In Benjamins v. British European Airways, 572 F.2d 913 (2d Cir. 1978) the plaintiff a Dutch citizen residing in California brought an action against an international air carrier and manufacturer for the death of his wife and loss of baggage. The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege any cause of action that arose to a violation of the law of nations and therefore jurisdiction did not arise under 28 U.S.C. 1350.

In Huynh Thi Anh v. Levi, 586 F.2d 625 (6th Cir. 1979) plaintiffs were the grandmother and uncle of Vietnamese children claiming that the adoption agency and practices in Michigan violated the law of nations (amongst other claims). The court held that under the treaties cited no private cause of action existed and that the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action under the Alien Tort Claims Act. The court did not find any international law that stated relatives of children had preferrential treatment over foster parents in attempting to adopt. For this reason, among others, the plaintiff did not have a cause of action.