abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

Academic explains new limits to human rights litigation after US court dismisses lawsuit against Airscan over alleged complicity in Colombia bomb attack

“The Ninth Circuit’s Muddled Comity Analysis in Mujica”, 21 Nov 2014

Last week the Ninth Circuit issued a controversial opinion in Mujica v. Airscan, Inc., that sharply limits the scope of human rights litigation. The claims in Mujica arose in Colombia and allegedly implicate corporate collusion with the Colombian military…What is extremely surprising is that the court dismissed the state law claims…I fully expected the Ninth Circuit…to apply California choice of law principles to resolve the claim…[meaning the Ninth Circuit] would retain jurisdiction of the state law claims and resolve them under Colombian law…Instead it relied on a novel prudential comity analysis to dismiss the claims...The…decision seems to suggest that [the application of choice-of-law principles following Kiobel]…is…fine for the typical wrongful death claim involving foreign contacts or parties. But if it is a human rights claim…in the guise of a wrongful death claim, then at least two members of the Ninth Circuit will bend over backwards to dismiss it…