Sr. Kate Reid v. Doe Run Resources Corp.
Not available in text (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of international comity does not compel a U.S. court to abstain from hearing state-law tort claims for injuries occurring abroad when the alleged negligent conduct and decision-making by a U.S.-based parent corporation took place within the United States.
Facts:
- In 1922, the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex (LOMC), a smelting and refining facility, began operations in La Oroya, Peru.
- The government of Peru took control of LOMC in 1974, operating it through a state-owned company.
- In 1997, The Doe Run Resources Corporation (Doe Run), a U.S.-based entity, purchased LOMC through a newly created Peruvian subsidiary, Doe Run Peru.
- The purchase agreement required Doe Run Peru to adhere to an Environmental Remediation and Management Plan to address pollution from the complex.
- Peruvian citizens, including children, alleged they suffered lead poisoning and persistent, irreversible cognitive impairments due to exposure to toxic substances from LOMC's operations under Doe Run's ownership.
- The plaintiffs' legal theory asserts that Doe Run, the U.S. parent company, controlled its Peruvian subsidiary and that decision-making by Doe Run executives in Missouri led to the failure to reduce emissions, thereby causing the plaintiffs' injuries.
- LOMC operated under Doe Run's ownership until it ceased operations in June 2009, after which Doe Run Peru initiated bankruptcy proceedings.
Procedural Posture:
- Peruvian citizens, represented by next friends, filed multiple common law tort lawsuits in Missouri state court against Doe Run.
- The cases were removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and consolidated into a single action.
- Doe Run filed a motion to dismiss, which was partially granted on other grounds, but the negligence-based claims were permitted to survive.
- The district court determined that Missouri state law applies to the surviving claims.
- Doe Run filed a motion arguing for dismissal based on the doctrine of international comity, which the district court denied.
- After discovery, Doe Run renewed its motion for dismissal on comity grounds, which the district court again denied.
- The district court certified its ruling on international comity for an interlocutory appeal, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit accepted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of international comity require a United States court to abstain from adjudicating state-law negligence claims brought by Peruvian citizens for injuries sustained in Peru, when the claims are based on allegations that a U.S. parent corporation's decision-making in the United States caused the harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Erickson, Circuit Judge
No, the doctrine of international comity does not require the court to abstain from adjudicating these claims. The court found no compelling reason based on treaty obligations, traditional comity factors, or principles of extraterritoriality to dismiss the lawsuit. First, the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA) does not mandate dismissal; its text and implementing statute support allowing such claims to proceed under state law. Second, the traditional factors for prospective comity abstention are not met, as this is not one of the 'rare' cases where powerful diplomatic interests are at stake, evidenced by the silence of both the U.S. State Department and the Peruvian government. The court also noted that an adequate remedy might not be available in Peru. Finally, extraterritoriality principles do not bar the suit because the plaintiffs' claims are based on the domestic application of state common law to tortious conduct (negligent decision-making) that allegedly occurred within the United States, distinguishing it from cases like Nestlé which involved the foreign application of a federal statute.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that U.S. parent corporations can be held accountable in American courts for tortious conduct committed within the United States, even when the resulting physical injury occurs in a foreign country. By narrowly construing the doctrine of international comity and distinguishing the case from the Supreme Court's extraterritoriality jurisprudence in Nestlé, the court signals that state common law claims targeting domestic decision-making remain viable in transnational tort litigation. This ruling provides a potential pathway for foreign plaintiffs to seek remedy in U.S. courts against multinational corporations, focusing on the location of corporate control and decision-making rather than solely on the location of the harm.
