abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

Diese Seite ist nicht auf Deutsch verfügbar und wird angezeigt auf English


17 Sep 2013

Paul Hoffman of Schonbrun Desimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman, & Michael Hausfeld of Hausfeld LLP, counsel for the plaintiffs

[PDF] Balintulo v. Daimler - Appellees' petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc

Alle Tags anzeigen
The panel opinion in Balintulo v. Daimler AG…would eviscerate more than thirty years of this Court’s Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”) jurisprudence and should be reviewed en banc because it conflicts with the Supreme Court’s decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,…as well as decisions in this Circuit…First, under the guise of resolving the threshold question of whether to grant a writ of mandamus, the panel issued an inappropriate opinion on the merits of Plaintiffs’ underlying claims. This merits opinion was issued despite denial of the writ of mandamus and the absence of any basis for appellate jurisdiction. Because the panel’s inappropriate analysis of Plaintiffs’ claims, which should be considered mere dicta, may be perceived as a directive to district courts in this Circuit, the decision merits consideration en banc.