FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T AUGUST 11, 2009 T HOMAS K . KAHN CLERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 6- 15 85 1

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 1- 03 20 8- CV-J EM SINALTRAINAL, ISIDRO SEGUNDO GIL, The Est at e Of, LUIS EDUARDO GARCIA, ALVARO GONZ ALEZ L OPEZ, JOSE DOMI NGO FLORES, JOR GE HUMBERTO LEAL , JUAN CARLOS GALVIS, ALVARO GONZ ALEZ, JOHN DOE, as rep res en ta ti ve of t he Est at e o f Is idro Seg un do Gil , LUIS ADOLFO CARDONA, JOHN DOE II, Pla in ti ffs -Ap pe ll an ts , ve rs us COCA-C OLA COMPANY, THE, COCA-C OLA DE COLOMBIA, S.A., PANAMERIC AN BEVERAGES COMPANY, LLC, PANAMCO, LLC, PANAMCO INDUSTRAIL DE GASEOSAS, S.A., a.k .a. Pan am co Co lu m

bi a, S.A., RICHAR D I. KIRBY, etal., Defen da nt s- App el le es .__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Au gu st11 , 20 09 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, BLACK andCOX, Circ ui t J ud ge s. BLACK, Ci rcu itJu dg e: The m ai n que st io n p res en te d b y th is ap pe al is whet he r Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s (Pl ai nt iff s) ha ve su ffi ci en tl y

pl edfactua l al le ga ti on s i n t he ir c om pl ai nt s t o s urvi ve a m ot io n t o d is m is s. In fou r co ns ol id at edcas es , Pla in ti ffs , who were trad e uni on le ad ers , bro ug htsu itun de r, in te r a li a , th e Ali enTortSta tu te (ATS), 28 U.S.C. § 1 35 0, an d t he Tortur e Vic ti m s Pr ot ect io n Act(TVPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1 35 0 n ot e,

1 al le gi ng th ei r em

pl oyers–two bo tt li ng co m pa ni es inCo lo m

bi a –c ol labo rat edwith 2 Co lo m bi anpa ram il it ary fo rces to m ur de r an d t ortu re Pl ai nt iff s. Pl ai nt iff

s’ 3

The statute is also known a s the Alien Tort Claims Act (AT CA), see, e .g. , Cabello v. 1 Fernandez-

Larios , 402 F.3d 1148, 1151 ( 11th Cir. 2005), and the Alien Tor t Act (ATA ), see, e.g. , Aldana v. De l Monte Fresh Produc e, N.A., Inc
. , 416 F.3d 1242, 1246 ( 11th Cir. 2005). The two bottler- employers a re B ebidas y

Alimentos de Ura

bá, S.A., and Pana

mco 2 Colombi a, S.A. Also named a s defe ndants alongwith the bottler-employers a re the ir respe ctive pare nt companies a

nd owner s. Richard Kirby (B ebidas y

Alimentos de Ura

bá’s owne r) a

nd Panamerican B ever ag es Company , L L C and Panamco, LL C (Panamco Colombia’s owne rs) we re also named a s defe ndants. In one of the four c ases, the Garcia case , the alleg ed conspira cy was with loca l police 3 officia ls, rather

than par amilitary

members. 2co m

pl ai nt s n am eda nu m

be r of de fen da nt s, i nc lu di ng The C oc a-Co laCo m pany (Co ca-C ol a USA) an d i ts subs id ia ry , Coc a-Co lade Co lo m bi a, S.A., (Co ca-C ol a Co lo m bi a). Co ca-C ol a USA an d C oc a-Co laCo lo m bi a (the Co ca-C ol a Defen da nt s) were al le ge dl y co nn ect edto th e Co lo m

bi anbo tt le rs , andth ei r res pe ct iv e em

pl oyees, thr ou gh a se rie s o f al te r eg o andag en cy rel at io ns hi ps . Intwo sep arat e o pi ni on s the di st ric t co urt fo un d i t l ack edsubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ov er Pl ai nt iff s’ ATS andTVPA clai m s. Se e Sin al tr ai na l v. Co ca -Co la Co
. , 25 6 F . Sup p. 2 d 1 34 5 (S .D. Fla. 2 00 3) ( Si na ltra in al I ); In re Sin al tr ai na l Li ti g. , 47 4 F . Sup p. 2 d 1 27 3 (S .D. Fla. 2 00 6) ( Si na ltra in al II ). The ATS i s di sc us se d i n g reat er d et ai l b el ow, b utbri efl y , itpro vi de s d is tri ctco urts with or ig in al juri sd ic ti on ov er “ an y civ il act io n b y

anali enfora to rt o nl y , commit te d i n vi ol at io n o f th e la w of n at io ns or atre aty of the Uni te d S ta te s.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 13 50 . The TVPA est ab li sh es a cau se of a ct io n fo r vi ct im s o f to rtu re an d e xt raju di ci al ki ll in g “ un de r actua l o r ap pa ren t au th or it y , or c ol orof l aw, of an y for ei gn na ti on .” 28 U.S.C. § 1 35 0 n ot e § 2(a ). W e ad dr es s wh ethe r th e fo urco m pl ai nt s s uf

fic ie nt ly al le ge a vi ol at io n o f th e la w of n at io ns un de r th e ATS, an d t orture an d ex tra jud ic ia l k il li ng un de r co lo r of law u nd er the TVPA, to s urvi ve a m ot io n t o di sm is s. Fo r th e rea so ns st at edbe lo w, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt.

3I. BACKGROUND

Pl ai nt iff s i ni ti al ly file d asi ng le co m pl ai ntag ai ns t the Co ca-C ol a Defen da nt s, Be bi da s y A li m en to s d e Urab á, S.A., Rich ardKirb y , Pan am co Co lo m bi a, S.A., Pan am eri can Bev erag es Co m pa ny, L LC, an d P an am co , LLC (co ll ect iv el y , Defen da nt s) . The co m pl ai ntall eg edth e syst em at ic in ti m id at io n, ki dn ap pi ng , det en ti on , to rtu re, an d m ur de r of Co lo m bi antra de un io ni st s atth e ha nd s o f pa ram il it ary fo rces , who all eg ed ly w orke d a s ag en ts of t he Defen da nt s. Defen da nt s jo in tl y

m ov edto di sm is s t he co m pl ai ntun de r Ru le 12 (b )(1 ) fo r la ckof subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on . Pla in ti ffs th enam en de d t he ir c om pl ai ntby fili ng fou r se pa rat e co m

pl ai nt s, wh ic h b ecame the Gil cas e, th e Galvis cas e, th e Lea l cas e, an d t he Gar ci a cas e. Bot tl er Be bi da s y A li m en to s d e Urab á an d i ts own er, 4 Ri ch ardKirb y

(th e Beb id as Defen da nt s) , were n am edinth e Gil co m pl ai nt , whe reas bo tt le r Pan am co Co lo m bi a an d i ts own ers , Pan am eri can Bev erag es Co m pa ny, L LC an d P an am co , LLC (th e Pan am co Defen da nt s) , were n am edinth e th ree o th er co m

pl ai nt s: Galvis , Lea l , and Gar ci a . Non e o f th e Defen da nt s ar e al le ge d t o b e d ire ct ly liab le forth e m ur de r an d t ortu re al le ge d i n t he co m pl ai nt s; The orig inal case number wa s 01-CIV-3208. The Gil case was a ssigne d this number, 4 while the other

complaints were assigned the f ollowing c ase numbe rs: 02-CIV-20258, 02-CIV20259, and 02-CIV-20260. B eca use these c ases we re f

actua lly related, they

wer e consolidate d for pr etrial purpose s and the Gil case was de signated as the le ad ca se. See Sinaltrainal II , 474 F. Supp. 2d at 1276 & n.8. 4rathe r, acco rd in g t o t he Gil , Galvis , and Lea l pl ai nt iff s, the to rti ou s co nduc t al le ge dl y co m mit te d b y pa ram il it ary m em

be rs is im pu te d t o Def

en da nt s t hr ou gh co ns pi racy, agen cy , andaid in g andab et ti ng th eo rie s. The Gar ci a pl ai nt iff s al le ge 5 Defen da nt s ar e v ic ari ou sl y li ab le forto rti ou s co nduc t al le ge dl y co m m it te d b y th e lo cal po li ce. Bro ug htby the est at e o f Is idro Seg un do Gil , am on g o th ers , th e Gil co m pl ai ntall eg es th e Beb id as Defen da nt s an d t he Co ca-C ol a Defen da nt s h ire d, co nt ract edwith, o r ot he rwis e d ire ct edpa ram il it ary se curit y for ces th atm

ur de red , to rtu red , or s il en cedlea de rs of t he tra de un io n re pr es en ti ng work ers at t he Beb id as bo tt li ng faci li ty. Isi dr o S eg un do Gil , a lo cal un io n l ead er, was all eg ed ly m ur de red by para m il it ari es in si de th e Beb id as bo tt li ng pl an t. Pl ai nt iff Lui s Ad ol fo Card on a, an ot he r un io n l ead er, al le ge dl y witne ss edGil ’s m

ur de r an d was lat er d et ai ne d a nd to rtu redby the pa ram il it ari es . Even ts inth e Gil co m pl ai ntto okpl ace a t the Beb id as bo tt li ng faci li ty, whi le th e ev en ts inth e th ree o th er co m pl ai nt s t oo k p la ce in th ree s ep arat e b ot tl in g fa ci li ti es op erat edby Panam co Co lo m bi a.

A claim for

state-sponsore d torture unde r either the ATS or the TV PA may be 5 predic ated on indire ct liability or direc t liabilit y . Aldana , 416 F.3d at 1247-48. The AT S permits conspirac y

and ac complice liability , and the TV PA permits aiding a nd abettingliability . Id. ; see also Romero v . Drummond Co., Inc
. , 552 F.3d 1303, 1315 ( 11th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he law of this Circuit permits a plaintiff to plead a theory of aidingand abe tting liability under the Alien Tort Statute and the Tortur e Ac t.”). 5The th ree o th er co m pl ai nt s n am e th e Pan am co Defen da nt s an d t he Co caCo laDefen da nt s. In Galvis , th e p la in ti ffs all eg e lo cal m an ag em en t o f th e Pan am co Co lo m

bi a fac il it y

inBara nc ab erm eja whe re J uan C arl os Galv is work ed co ns pi redwith l ead ers of the lo cal pa ram il it ary to ridth e fac il it y of t he un io n. Galv is all eg es he rece iv eda nu m be r of de ath t hr eat s fr om

th e p aram il it ari es forhi s un io n a ct iv it ie s an d wh il e driv in g i n h is car, o n o ne oc cas io n, was sh otat b y a gu nm an . In Lea l , pl ai nt iff s al le ge lo cal m an ag em en t o f th e Pan am co Co lo m bi a faci li ty in Cu cu tawher e Jo rg e Hum be rto Leal work edco ns pi redwith l ead ers of th e lo cal pa ram il it ari es to ridth e b ot tl in g fa ci li ty of th e uni on . Leal al le ge s h e was ki dn ap pe d, t ortu red , andth reat en edby the lo cal pa ram il it ari es forhi s u ni on act iv it ie s. In Gar ci a , un li ke Gil , Galvis , and Lea l , th e p la in ti ffs all eg e a co ns pi racy betweenth e lo cal po li ce, rat he r th anpa ram il it ary of fic ers , andth e bo tt li ng faci li ti es ’ m an ag em en t. The Gar ci a pl ai nt iff s al le ge th e ch ie f of

sec ur it y fo r th e Bu cara m an gafaci li ty whe re p la in ti ffs work edco ns pi redwith l oc al po li ce of fic ers to un la wfu ll y

arre st , det ai n, an d i m

pr is on pl ai nt iff

s. Pl ai nt iff s at te m ptto co nn ectth e Co ca-C ol a Defen da nt s t o t he lo cal faci li ti es ’ m an ag em en t thr ou gh a se rie s o f ag en cy an d a lt er eg o re la ti on sh ip s. Fo r ex am pl e, in th e Gil cas e, th e p la in ti ffs ’ lay eredth eo ry of a ge nc y

an d a lt er eg o li ab il it y is as f ol lo ws: th e b ot tl in g fa ci li ty, Beb id as , is res po ns ib le forth e act s o f 6it s emplo y ees , in cl ud in g c on sp iri ng with l oc al param il it ari es to ridth e fac il it y of un io ns . Beb id as , intu rn , is analt er eg o o r ag en t o f Ri ch ardKirb y , Beb id as ’ own er an d m an ag er, s uc h t ha t Ki rb y is li ab le foran y

wron gf ul co nduc t b y

Beb id as em pl oyees t ha t re su lt edinth e m ur de r of Gil . Beb id as an d Ki rb y , inturn , are the al te r eg os or a ge nt s o f Co ca-C ol a Co lo m bi a b ecau se Co ca-C ol a Co lo m bi a is res po ns ib le form anuf

actur in g a nddi st rib ut in g C oc a-Co lapro du ct s t o B eb id as an d al l o th er b ot tl ers inCo lo m bi a. Co ca-C ol a Co lo m

bi a, a who ll y -o wne d s ub si di ary of Co ca-C ol a USA, intu rn , is analt er eg o o r ag en t o f Co ca-C ol a USA be cau se Co ca-C ol a Co lo m

bi a is un de r th e m an ag em en t, co nt ro l, an d d ire ct io n o f Co caCo laUSA to th e ex te ntth atit s s ep arat en es s i s i ll us ory . In Si na ltra in al

I , th e d is tri ctco urt h el d i t d idno t h av e subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ov er the ATS andTVPA clai m s ag ai ns t the Co ca-C ol a Defen da nt s. Se e Sin al tr ai na l I

, 25 6 F . Sup p. 2 d a t 1 35 5, 1 35 7. Th e co urt d et erm in eda bo tt le r’s ag reem en t, wh ic h g av e Co ca-C ol a USA th e ri gh t t o e nf or ce s ta nd ard s ne ces sa ry to pro te ctCo ca-C ol a’s pr oduc t i n t he m ark etpl ace, i nc lu di ng th e u se of th e tr ad em ark , pac ka gi ng , andqu al it y co nt ro l, d idno t g iv e Co ca-C ol a USA th e to ta l co nt ro l o ve r da y -to -d ay act iv it ie s t ha t Pl ai nt iff

s al le ge d. Itco nc lu de d t he Co ca-C ol a Defen da nt s t he refo re d idno t h av e th e requi si te co nt ro l t o b e li ab le for

7th e act io ns of B eb id as or i ts em pl oyees. The d is tri ctco urt the n d is m is se d t he

6 Co ca-C ol a Defen da nt s fo r la ck of s ub ject m atte r juri sd ic ti on be cau se th e Pl ai nt iff s fai le d t o s uf

fic ie nt ly alle ge th e Co ca-C ol a Defen da nt s v io la te d t he law o f na ti on s by con sp iri ng with t he lo cal pa ram il it ary fo rces to m ur de r Gil an d t ortu re Ca rd on a. Si na ltra in al

I , 25 6 F . Sup p. 2 d a t 1 35 4- 55 . The d is tri ctco urt d idno t d is m is s t he ATS andTVPA clai m s ag ai ns t the Beb id as Defen da nt s atth atti m e. Id . at 1 35 6, 7 13 60 . Sub se qu en tl y , in Si na ltra in al II , th e d is tri ctco urt ex am in edinde ta il th e al le ga ti on s i n e ach of t he fou r co m pl ai nt s an d d et erm in edeach fel l s ho rt o f pl ead in g t he factua l al le ga ti on s n eces sa ry to in vo ke th e co urt’s s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on un de r th e ATS an d t he TVPA. The di st ric t co urt fo un d t he all eg at io ns in all fou r co m

pl ai nt s i ns uf

fic ie nt ly ple d aco ns pi racy betweenth e lo cal faci li ti es ’
m an ag em en t an d t he pa ram il it ary of fic ers . Si na ltra in al

II , 47 4 F . Sup p. 2 d a t 12 93 -1 30 1.

The district cour

t discussed the motion to dism iss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 6 only as it applied to the Gil case , but beca use the other

threecase s filed identical motions, it stated the holding s in the order would apply

to all four ca ses. Sinaltrai nal I , 256 F. Supp. 2d at 1347 n.1. Be cause the district court discussed the motion to di smiss onl y as it relate d to the Gil 7 case (in which the Pana

mco Def endants we re not named), the Pana mco Def endants sought a clarification of the Sinaltrai nal I order as it relate d to the rema ining c ases. Thedistrict court grante d the Panamco D efe ndants’ motion for cla rification and dismiss ed the Galvis complaint without prejudice. 8II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to gra nta m ot io n t o d is m is s fo r la ckof s ub ject
m at te r juri sd ic ti onpu rs ua ntto Ru le 12 (b )(1 ) is a qu es ti on of l aw we rev ie wde
no vo . McElmu rr ayv. Co ns ol . Gov’ t o f Augu st a- Rich mon d C

ou nt y , 50 1 F .3d 12 44 , 12 50 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). A m ot io n t o d is m is s u nd er Ru le 12 (b )(1 ) m ay ass ert ei th er a fa ctua l at ta ckor afaci al att ackto juri sd ic ti on . Se e id
. at12 51 ; La wr en ce v. Dun ba r , 91 9 F .2d15 25 , 15 28 -2 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 0) . A factu al att ackch al le ng es

“ th e ex is te nc e o f subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on infact , irre sp ect iv e o f th e p le ad in gs , an d m at te rs ou ts id e th e p le ad in gs , su chas t es ti m on y an d a ffi da vi ts , are co ns id ered .” La wr en ce , 91 9 F .2dat 1 52 9. In a faci al att ack , onth e o th er h an d, the co urt ex am in es whet he r th e co m pl ai ntha s s uf

fic ie nt ly alle ge d s ub

ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on . As itdo es when co ns id eri ng a Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) m ot io n t o d is m is s fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m , th e co urt co ns tru es th e co m pl ai ntinth e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e p la in ti ff an d a ccep ts all well -p le d fa ct s al le ge d b y inth e co m

pl ai nt as tru e. McElmu rr ay , 50 1 F .3dat 1 25 1 (n ot in g i n aRu le 12 (b )(1 ) fac ia l ch al le ng e a p la in ti ff h as “ sa feg ua rd s s im il ar t o t ho se ret ai ne d wh ena Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) m ot io n to di sm is s fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m is rai se d” ). Altho ug h i t m

us t ac cep t wel l-p le d fa ct s as tru e, th e co urt i s n otrequi redto acce pta pl ai nt iff’s leg al co nc lu si on s. Ash cr of t v. Iq ba l , 55 6 U.S. --- ,12 9 S . Ct. 919 37 , 19 49 (20 09 ) (n ot in g “ th e te ne t tha t a c ou rt m us t ac cep t as tru e al l o f th e al le ga ti on s co nt ai ne d i n aco m pl ai ntis in ap pl ic ab le to leg al co nc lu si on s” ). In ev al ua ti ng th e su ffi ci en cy of apl ai nt iff’s pl ead in gs , we m ak e rea so nabl e in fere nc es inPla in ti ff’s fav or , “bu t we ar e n otrequi redto dra w pl ai nt iff’s in fere nc e.” Ald

an a v . Del Mo nt e Fresh Pro du ce, N.A., In c. , 41 6 F .3d12 42 , 12 48 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . Sim il arl y , “un warra nt edde du ct io ns of f act ” in a co m

pl ai ntare no t ad mit te d a s tru e fo r th e p ur po se of t es ti ng th e su ffi ci en cy of p la in ti ff’s al le ga ti on s. Id .; see al

so Iqb al , 12 9 S . Ct. at19 51 (st at in g c on cl us ory all eg at io ns are “ no t en ti tl edto be ass um edtru e”). A com pl ai ntm ay

be di sm is se d i f th e fac ts as p le d d o n otst at e a cl ai m for rel ie f th atis pl au si bl e o n i ts face . Se e Iq ba l , 12 9 S . Ct. at19 50 (ex pl ai ni ng “ on ly a co m pl ai ntth atst at es a pl au si bl e cl ai m forrel ie f su rv iv es a m ot io n t o d is m is s” ); Bell Atl . Cor p. v. Tw omb ly , 55 0 U.S. 5 44 , 56 1- 62 , 57 0, 1 27 S. Ct. 1 95 5, 1 96 8- 69 , 19 74 (20 07 ) (ret iri ng th e p rio r “ un le ss itap pe ars be y on d d oubtth atth e p la in ti ff can pro ve no setof f

act s” st an da rd ). In Two mbl y , th e Supr em e Co urt em ph as iz ed a co m pl ai nt“ requi res m or e th anlab el s an d c on cl us io ns , anda fo rm ul ai c rec it at io n of th e el em en ts of acau se of a ct io n wi ll no t d o.” Two mbl y , 55 0 U.S. at55 5, 1 27 S. Ct . at 1 96 5. Fa ctua l al le ga ti on s i n aco m pl ai ntne edno t b e d et ai le d b ut“ m us t b e en ou ghto rai se a ri gh t t o re li ef ab ov e th e sp ecu la ti ve lev el on th e as su m pt io n t ha t 10al l the all eg at io ns inth e co m pl ai ntare tru e (ev enif d oubt fu l i n fa ct ).” Id
. at 5 55 , 12 7 S . Ct. at19 64 -6 5 (i nt ern al cit at io ns an d e m ph as is om it te d) . Mo re re cen tl y , in Iq ba l , th e Supr em e Co urt re it erat edth atalt ho ug h R ul e 8 of th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e d oe s n otrequi re d et ai le d fa ctua l al le ga ti on s, i t d oe s d em an d “ m or e th ananun ad orne d, th e-d efen da nt -u nl awfu ll y -h arm ed -m e acc us at io n.” Iq ba l , 12 9 S . Ct. at19 49 . A co m pl ai ntm us t s ta te a pl au si bl e cl ai m forrel ie f, an d “ [a] clai m ha s fa ci al pl au si bi li ty whe n t he pl ai nt iff pl ead s fa ctua l co nt en t tha t al lo ws the co urt t o d raw th e rea so nabl e in fere nc e th atth e d efen da ntis li ab le forth e m is co nduc t al le ge d.” Id . The m ere p os si bi li ty the de fen da ntact edun lawfu ll y is in su ffi ci en t t o s urvi ve a m ot io n t o d is m is s. Id . The wel l-p le d a ll eg at io ns m us t n ud ge th e cl ai m

“ acro ss th e li ne fro m co nc ei vabl e to pl au si bl e.” Two mbl y , 55 0 U.S. at57 0, 1 27 S. Ct. at19 74 . III. DISC USSION A. App li ca bl e Sta tu tes 1. Ali en To rt

Stat ut e The Fir stCo ng res s en act edth e ATS as pa rt o f th e Ju di ci ary Act o f 17 89 . It ha s re cei ve d m in oram en dm en ts si nc e th atti m e an d n ow p ro vi de s: “ The di st ric t 8 As it appea

red in 1789, the A TS provided fe dera l district courts “shall also have 8 cognizance, conc urre nt with the courts of the se vera l States, or the circ uit courts, as the c ase ma y be, of a ll causes whe re a

n alien sues f

or a tort only

in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of 11co urts sh al l h av e o rig in al juri sd ic ti on of a ny civ il act io n b y anali enfora to rt o nl y , co m m it te d i n v io la ti on of t he law o f na ti on s o r a treat y of t he Uni te d S ta te s.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 1 35 0. Fe de ral subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ex is ts foranATS cla im when th e fo ll owi ng th ree e le m en ts are s at is fie d: (1) anali en(2) su es fora to rt (3 ) co m mit te d i n v io la ti on of t he law o f na ti on s. Se e, e.g . , Ald an a , 41 6 F .3dat 12 46 . A vi ol at io n o f th e la w of n at io ns is bro ad ly und ers to odas avi ol at io n o f th e no rm s o f cu st om ary in te rn at io na l l aw. In d is cu ss in g t he no rm s o f cu st om ary in te rn at io na l l aw, th e Supr em e Co urt h as no te d t he li m it edcat eg ory of c la im s t ha t fed eral co urts co ul d e nt ert ai n a t the ti m e th e ATS was e na ct edwere “ de fin edby th e la w of n at io ns an d re co gn iz edat c omm on law.” So sa v. Alva re z-Mac ha in , 54 2 U.S. 69 2, 7 12 , 12 4 S . Ct. 2 73 9, 2 75 4 (2 00 4)
. Offen se s ag ai ns t the law o f na ti on s pr in ci pa ll y

in vo lv edth e ri gh ts or i nt eres ts of wh ol e st at es or n at io ns , anddi d n ot ne ces sa ril y

in vo lv e th e p riv at e in te res ts of i nd iv idua ls see ki ng rel ie f in co urt. Id . at72 0, 1 24 S. Ct. at27 59 . As th is Co urt h as pre vi ou sl y no te d, the law o f na ti on s are “ [t]he st an da rd s b y

whi ch na ti on s re gu la te th ei r de al in gs with o ne an ot he r.”

the United States.” A ct of Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, § 9, 1 Stat. 77; see also Sosa v. Alvarez-M

achain , 542 U.S. 692, 712-13, 124 S. Ct. 2739, 2755 (2004).

12Co he n v . Har tma n , 63 4 F .2d31 8, 3 19 (5t h C ir. Un itB Ja n. 1 98 1) (“ [T]he g en eral 9
co ns en su s i s t ha t the law [o f na ti on s] dea ls pri m ari ly w it h t he rel at io ns hi p a m on g na ti on s ra th er tha n a m on g i nd iv idua ls .” (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) );
ac co rd In re Es ta te of

Ferdin an d E. Ma rc os Huma n Ri gh ts Lit ig
. , 97 8 F .2d49 3, 50 1- 02 (9t h C ir. 1 99 2) (“ Onl y in di vi du al s wh o h av e act edun de r of fic ia l au th or it y orun de r co lo r of

su ch au th or it y

m ay vi ol at e in te rn at io na l l aw . . . . ”). At the ti m e o f th e fo un di ng of o urna ti on , th e v io la ti on s o f th e la w of na ti on s t ha t wer e rec og ni zedat c omm on law wer e und ers to odto in cl ud e (1 ) vi ol at io n o f sa fe co nduc ts , (2) off en se s ag ai ns t am

ba ss ad or s, an d (3 ) pi racy. So sa , 54 2 U.S. at72 0, 1 24 S. Ct. at27 59 ; se e a ls o 4 W. Black st on e, Co m m en ta rie s o n t he Laws o f Eng la nd68 (17 69 ). The ATS–whi ch pro vi de s 1 0

“ [t]he di st ric t co urts sh al l h av e o rig in al juri sd ic ti on ”– is un qu es ti on ab ly a juri sd ic ti on al st atut e, y etitals o h as th e “pr act ic al effe ct ” o f en te rta in in g c omm on la w cau se s o f act io n fo r th e “ m od es t n um be r” o f vi ol at io ns of t he law o f na ti on s. So sa , 54 2 U.S. at72 4, 1 24 S. Ct. at27 61 . In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), this 9 Court adopted as bindingprec edent a ll decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down prior to close of busine ss on September 30, 1981. Some commentators have sug g ested the A TS was ena cted “ to assure a liens acc ess to 1 0 fede ral c ourts to vindicate any incident which, if mishandled by a state c ourt, might blossom into an international crisis.” Tel-Oren v . Libyan Arab Republic , 726 F.2d 774, 782 ( D.C. Cir. 1984) (Edwa rds, J ., concur

ring ). 13The ATS was ra rel y em pl oyed b efo re the 19 80 s. In de ed , th e “ m od ernli ne of [ATS] cas es ” b eg anwithFilár ti ga v. Peña -Ir al a , 63 0 F .2d87 6 (2 d C ir. 1 98 0) . So sa , 54 2 U.S. at72 5, 1 24 S. Ct. at27 61 ; see al so Abe be -Ji ra v. Neg ewo , 72 F.3d 84 4, 8 46 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ) (d es cri bi ng Filár ti ga as “ [t]he lea di ng cas e in te rp ret in g th e Ali enTortCla im s Act ”). In Filár ti ga , Dr. Jo el Fil árt ig a an d h is daug ht er, two Para gu ay ancit iz en s, b ro ug htanact io n fo r wro ng fu l d eat h a ga in sta Para gu ay an po li ce o ffi ci al who all eg ed ly tortur edan d k il le d Dr. Fi lá rti ga ’s sev en te en -y ear o ld so n. Filár ti

ga , 63 0 F .2dat 8 78 . The Se co ndCir cu itrev ers edth e d is tri ctco urt’s di sm is sa l fo r la ckof s ub

ject m at te r juri sd ic ti onan d h el d t he ATS pro vi de d fe de ral juri sd ic ti on forcla im s i nv ol vi ng un iv ers al ly accep te d n orm s o f in te rn at io na l l aw. Id
. The c ou rt c on cl ud edsu ch un iv ers al ly accep te d n orm s i nc lu de d t he rig htto be free fro m to rtu re co m

m it te d b y a st at e o ffi ci al . Id
. at88 0. Th e co urt, thu s, ex pa nd edth e ATS be y on d t he th ree c at eg or ie s re co gn iz edat t he fou nd in g o f th e na ti on . In So sa , th e Supr em e Co urt co nf irmed th e ATS is no t o nl y a juri sd ic ti on al st atut e ; the ATS als o e m po wers fed eral co urts to en te rta in “ a v ery li m it ed 1 1 Fe dera l jurisdiction under the ATS exist s only when a defe ndant’s alleg ed conduc t 1 1 violates “we ll-established, universa lly rec ognized norms of international law,” Filártiga , 630 F.2d at 888. Alleg ations of a violation of the la w of nations, i.e., an offe nse of univer sal conc ern or conduc t under c olor of law that may be imputed to defe ndants, is a jurisdictional require ment for the A TS. See Bigio v. Coca-Cola Co. , 239 F.3d 440, 447 ( 2d Cir. 2000) (“[I ]f the complaint did not plead a violation of the la w of nations by

[defendant], the district court wa s without 14cat eg ory ” o f cl ai m s. So sa , 54 2 U.S. at71 2, 1 24 S. Ct. at27 54 ; se e a ls o Ald an a , 41 6 F .3dat 1 24 6. Pl ai nt iff Hum be rto Alv arez -Ma ch ai n, a M ex ic anna ti on al , br ou gh t an act io n und er the ATS aga in stth e Uni te d S ta te s, al le gi ng hi s ab du ct io n fro m Mex ic o t o s ta ndtri al inth e Uni te d S ta te s fo r a Dru g En fo rcem en t Adm in is tra ti on ag en t’s t ortu re an d m ur de r vi ol at edhi s ci vi l ri gh ts . So sa , 54 2 U.S. at69 8- 99 , 12 4 S . Ct. at27 46 -4 7. In reject in g h is ATS cla im , th e Supr em e Co urt he ld“ a si ng le il le ga l d et en ti on of l es s t ha n ada y , fol lo wedby the tra ns fer o f cu st od y to lawf ul au th or it ie s an d apro m ptarra ig nm en t, v io la te s n o n orm of cu st om ary in te rn at io na l l aw so well de fin edas t o s up po rt t he crea ti on of afed eral rem edy .” Id . at 7 38 , 12 4 S . Ct. at27 69 . Whi le no t re co gn iz in g Alv arez -Ma ch ai n’s cl ai m fora vi ol at io n o f th e la w of n at io ns , th e Co urt d idno te th e li m it edcat eg ory

of c la im s fe de ral co urt co ul d e nt ert ai n wi th in th e la w of na ti on s s ph ere h adex pa nd edbe y on d t he ori gi na l und ers ta nd in g o f th e Fi rs t Co ng res s. In de ed , fed eral co urts ha ve no t b een pre cl ud edfro m reco gn iz in g n ew cl ai m s u nd er the law o f na ti on s as anele m en t o f th e co m m on law, ev enth ou gh th e la w of n at io ns was o rig in al ly lim it edto vi ol at io n o f sa fe co nduc ts , off en se s ag ai ns t subject matter jurisdiction under the Alien Tor t Claims Act . . . .”); Kadic v. Karadzic , 70 F.3d 232, 238 (2d Cir. 1995) (“ [T] he Alien Tor t Act re quires that plaintiffs plea d a ‘violation of the law of nations’ at the jurisdictional threshold . . . .” ( quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1350)); Filártiga , 630 F.2d at 887 (noting the ATS require s alleg ing a violation of the law of na tions at the jurisdictional threshold). 15am

ba ss ad or s, an d p ira cy . Id . at 7 24 -2 5, 1 24 S. Ct. at27 61 . The Supr em e Co urt cau ti on ed , ho wev er, the jud ic ia l p owe r to reco gn iz e n ew la w of n at io ns vi ol at io ns

“ sh ou ldbe ex erci se d o n t he un de rs ta nd in g t ha t the do oris st il l ajarsubjec t t o vi gi la nt do orkeep in g .” Id . at 7 29 , 12 4 S . Ct. at27 64 (em ph as is ad de d) . The m od ernli ne of ATS ca se s i ni ti al ly inv ol ve d s ta te act or s v io la ti ng th e la w of n at io ns , bu t s ub se qu en t ca se s h av e ex pa nd edth e sc op e o f th e ATS to im po se li ab il it y

on pri va te in di vi du al s an d c or po rat io ns . In 1 99 5, the Seco nd Ci rcu ithe ldRad ov anKarad zi c, se lf- pr oc la im edlea de r of anun reco gn iz ed Bo sn ia n- Serb en ti ty, co ul d b e li ab le fora vi ol at io n o f th e law of n at io ns for or de rin g acam

pa ig n o f m

ur de r, rap e, fo rcedim

pr eg na ti on , andot he r fo rm s o f to rtu re d es ig ne d t o d es tro y rel ig io us an d e th ni c g ro up s o f Bo sn ia n M us li m s an d Bo sn ia n C ro at s. Ka di c v. Ka ra dz ic , 70 F.3d23 2, 2 42 (2dCir . 19 95 ). Karad zi c arg ue d h e was no t a s ta te act orbe cau se he was n otanoff ic ia l o f an y

reco gn iz ed go ve rn m en t. The Seco ndCir cu itreject edKarad zi c’s co nt en ti on an d h el d a ct s su ch as g en oc id e an d warcri m es “ vi ol at e th e la w of n at io ns whet he r un de rta ke n by tho se act in g und er the au sp ic es of ast at e o r on ly as pr iv at e in di vi du al s.” Id
. at 23 9; se e a ls o i d. at24 4. In de ed , to rtu re an d s umm ary ex ecu ti on pe rp etrat edinth e co ur se of g en oc id e o r war cri m es ha ve be enfou ndact io nabl e ab se ntst at e act io n. Se e id
. at 2 43 (“ [T]ortu re an d s umm ary ex ecu ti on–wh enno t p erp etrat edinth e 16co ur se of g en oc id e o r war cri m es –a re p ro sc rib edby int ern at io na l l aw on ly whe n

co m m it te d b y st at e o ffi ci al s o r un de r co lo r of law.”) . Thi s C ou rt h as als o a ckno wled ge d p riv at e in di vi du al s m ay be li ab le fora vi ol at io n o f th e la w of n at io ns . Se e Rome ro v. Dru mmon d C o., In c. , 55 2 F .3d 13 03 , 13 16 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (“ Und er the Ali enTortSta tu te , st at e act or s ar e th e m ai n o bjec ts of t he law o f na ti on s, b utin di vi du al s m ay be li ab le , un de r th e la w of na ti on s, fo r so m e co nduc t, s uc h a s war cri m es , reg ard le ss of wh ethe r th ey act ed un de r co lo r of

law o f a fo rei gn na ti on .”). Inad di ti onto pri va te in di vi du al li ab il it y , we ha ve als o re co gn iz edco rp or at e d efen dant s ar e subjec t t o l iabi li ty und er the ATS andm ay

be li ab le forvi ol at io ns of t he law o f na ti on s. Se e id
. at13 15 (“ [T]he la w of t hi s C irc ui t i s t ha t [ATS] grant s ju ris di ct io n fr om co m pl ai nt s o f to rtu re ag ai ns t co rp or at e d efen da nt s.”) ; Ald an a , 41 6 F .3dat 1 24 2. In Romer o , th e Co lo m bi ansubs id ia ry

of a n Al ab am a co al m in in g c om pa ny was al le ge d t o h av e pa idpa ram il it ary op erat iv es to to rtu re an d a ss as si na te lea de rs of aCo lo m bi an tra de un io n re pr es en ti ng work ers at t he Co lo m bi anmin e. Romer o , 55 2 F .3dat 13 09 . W e reject edde fen da nt s’ arg um en t tha t co rp or at e d efen da nt s wer e ex cl ud ed fro m eit he r th e ATS orth e TVPA. Id
. at13 15 .

172. To rt ur e Vic ti m Pro te ct io n Act

Ena ct edin19 92 , th e TVPA pro vi de s a c au se of a ct io n fo r of fic ia l t ortu re an d e xtraju di ci al ki ll in g. The TVPA is bro ad er than t he ATS inth atth e TVPA 1 2 al lo ws ci ti zen s, as well as a li en s, t o s eekrem edy infed eral co urt fo r of

fic ia l to rtu re. S. Rep . No. 1 02 -2 49 , at 5 (19 91 ) (“ [W] hi le th e [ATS] pro vi de s a r em edy to ali en s o nl y , th e TVPA . . . ex te nd [s ] a ci vi l re m edy als o t o U.S. ci ti zen s wh o m ay ha ve be ento rtu redab ro ad .”); see al so Flo res v. S. Peru Co

pp er Co rp . , 41 4 F.3 d 2 33 , 24 6- 47 (2dCir . 20 03 ). By it s t erm s, the TVPA att ach es li ab il it y to th os e in di vi du al s who have co m m it te d t ortu re o r ex tra

jud ic ia l k il li ng “un de r actua l o r 1 3

In pertinent pa

rt, the TVPA provide s: 1 2 An individual who, under a ctual or a ppare nt authority , or color of law, of a ny fore ign nation- (1) subjec ts an individual to torture shall, in a civil action, be liable for damag es to that individual; or (2) subjec ts an individual to ex trajudicial killing sha ll, in a civil action, be liable f

or dama g es to the individual’s leg al represe ntative, or to any person who ma

y be a c laimant in an ac tion for wrong ful death. Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 § 2( a), Pub. L . No. 102-256, 106 Stat. 73 (ena cted Marc h 12, 1992) (c odified at 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (Historica l and Statutory Notes)) . The TVPA define s torture a s any

act ( 1) “dire cted a g ainst an individual in the offe nder’ s custody or phy sical control[;] ” (2) that inflicts “seve re pa in or suffe ring [,] . . . whether phy sical or mental[;] ” (3) for the pur

pose of obtaininginformation, intimidation, puni shment or discrimination. 28 U.S.C. § 1350 not e § 3(b) (1). Extrajudicial killing is define d as “a deliberated killing not authorized by a pre vious judgment pronounc ed by a re gularly constituted court af

fordingall the judicial guara ntees whic h arerec ognized as indispensable by civiliz ed people s.” 28 U.S.C. § 1350 note § 3(a) . This Court has determined “ an individual” to whom liability may attach unde r the 1 3 TVPA also includes a

corpor ate de fenda

nt. See R omero , 552 F.3d at 1315 (“Unde r the law of this Ci rcuit, the Tor

ture Ac t allows suits aga inst corporate def endants.” ). 18ap pa ren t au th or it y , or c ol orof l aw, of an y for ei gnna ti on .” To ev al ua te “ actua l o r ap pa ren t au th or it y ” an d “ co lo r of law,” t hi s C ou rt h as rel ie d o n g en eral pri nc ip le s of ag en cy law an d 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 juri sp ru de nc e. Ald an a , 41 6 F .3dat 1 24 7;
ac co rd Ka di c , 70 F.3dat 2 45 . To pu rs ue a cl ai m for off ic ia l t ortu re o r ex tra jud ic ia l k il li ng un de r th e TVPA, th e requi si te subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on m ay be co nf erre d e ithe r by the ATS or 2 8 U.S.C. § 13 31 . Se e Romer o , 55 2 F .3dat 13 15 (“ Fed eral co urts are em po weredto en te rta in co m pl ai nt s u nd er the Tortur e Act wh eneit he r th e Ali enTortSta tu te or t he fed eral qu es ti on st atut e, 28 U.S.C. § 1 33 1, p ro vi de s ju ris di ct io n.” ). Thi s C ou rt, i n Ald

an a an d Romer o , squa rel y co ns id eredth e st at e act io n requi rem en t o f th e TVPA. In Ald an a , th e p la in ti ffs all eg edFres h Del Mo nt e Pro du ce, In c., an d i ts Guat em al ansubs id ia ry hi redor e st ab li sh edanag en cy rel at io ns hi p wi th a pr iv at e, pa ram il it ary se cu rit y for ce t o e rad ic at e th e lo cal un io n. Ald an a , 41 6 F .3dat 1 24 5. We con cl ud edth e st at e act io n re qu ire m en t was sa ti sf ie d b ecau se on e p ub li c o ffi ci al , a di st ric t m ay or , was i de nt ifi edby nam e in th e co m pl ai ntan d was all eg edto ha ve act iv el y pa rti ci pa te d i n t he pa ram il it ary fo rce’s arm edag gr es si on . Id . at 1 24 9 (c on cl ud in g t he co m pl ai ntco ul d

“ reas on ab ly be rea d a s d ep ic ti ng th e Ma y oras a n ‘arm edag gr es so r,’ no t a m ere ob se rv er”) . On th e o th er h an d, i n Romer o , we det erm in edth e st at e act io n 19requi rem en t was no t s at is fie d b ecau se th e p la in ti ffs fai le d t o a ll eg e th e

pa ram il it ari es en

joy eda “ sym

bi ot ic rel at io ns hi p” with t he st at e m il it ary fo r th e pu rp os e o f th e al le ge d a ss as si na ti on s t ha t fo rm edth e b as is of the co m pl ai nt . Romer o , 55 2 F .3dat 1 30 3. We con cl ud ed“ th ere m us t b e p ro of

of asym bi ot ic rel at io ns hi p b etweena pr iv at e act or an d t he go ve rn m en t tha t i nv ol ve s t he to rtu re orki ll in g a ll eg edinth e co m pl ai ntto sat is fy

th e requi rem en t o f st at e act io n.” Id . at 13 17 ; ac co rd

Rayb ur n e

x re l. Ra yb ur n v . Hog ue , 24 1 F .3d13 41 , 13 48 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (“ [T]he sym

bi ot ic rel at io ns hi p m

us t i nv ol ve th e sp eci fic co nduc t o f whi ch th e p la in ti ff co m

pl ai ns .” (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). B. Plai nt if

fs ’ All egat io ns of

Murde r a nd

To rt ur e Pl ai nt iff s co nt en d C ol om

bi a h as ex pe rie nc edpe rv as iv e ci vi l u nr es t st em m in g fr om

a lo ng st an di ng civ il war in vo lv in g a rm edlef ti stgro up s o n o ne si de an d t he Co lo m

bi anm il it ary, as we ll as r ig ht -win g p aram il it ari es , onth e o th er. Si nc e 1 98 6, wh enth e larg es t trad e uni on co nf ed erat io n i n C ol om

bi a was form ed , ov er 4 ,00 0 t rad e uni on is ts ha ve be enm ur de red . Plai nt iff

s d es cri be th e v io le nt pe rs ecu ti on of t rad e uni on is ts inCo lo m bi a as reac hi ng “ ep id em ic pro po rti on s” for
m an y y ears . Plai nt iff

s al so co nt en d t he y

do no t h av e acc es s t o a n i nd ep en de ntor fu nc ti on in g l eg al syste m

inCo lo m

bi a, be cau se th ey

su gg es t the co un try is n ot go ve rn edby the rul e o f la w. It is ag ai ns t thi s b ack dr op th atPla in ti ffs ’ cl ai m s 20ari se . Plai nt iff s d o n otall eg e an y

de fen da ntcau se d o r pr eci pi ta te d t he vi ol en ce; rathe r, Defen da nt s ar e acc us edof c ap it al iz in g o n t he ho st il e en vi ro nm en t an d co ns pi rin g wi th pa ram il it ari es , or t he lo cal po li ce i n t he cas e o f Gar ci a , to ridth ei r res pe ct iv e b ot tl in g fa ci li ti es of u ni on s. Pl ai nt iff s ea chbro ug htcla im s u nd er the ATS andTVPA. Agai n, fe de ral 1 4
subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ex is ts foranATS cla im when th e fo ll owi ng th ree el em en ts are s at is fie d: (1) anali en(2) su es fora to rt ( 3) co m m it te d i n v io la ti on of th e la w of n at io ns . Ald

an a , 41 6 F .3dat 1 24 6. In th is cas e, as inm os t ATS ca se s, th e o nl y is su e is whet he r Pl ai nt iff s h av e sa ti sf

act or il y pl eda vi ol at io n o f th e la w of na ti on s. Se e Ka di c , 70 F.3dat 2 38 (“ The re i s n o fe de ral subjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on un de r th e Ali enTortAct u nl es s t he co m pl ai ntad equa te ly ple ad s a vi ol at io n o f th e la w of n at io ns (ortre aty of t he Uni te d S ta te s) .”). A TVPA clai m requi res th e fo ll owi ng th ree e le m en ts : (1 ) anin di vi du al (2) co m m it te d t ortu re o r ex tra jud ic ia l k il li ng (3) un de r actua l o r ap paren t au th or it y , or c ol orof l aw, of an y fo rei gnna ti on . 28 U.S.C. § 1 35 0 n ot e § 2(a ). Fai lu re t o p le adan y of t he ele m en ts of a TVPA cla im

res ul ts ina fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m up on whi chrel ie f can be gr an te d, Romer o , 55 2 F .3dat 1 31 5 (“ [D]efect s i n p le ad in g c la im s u nd er the
We need not, and spe cifica lly do not, decide whether

a heightened plea ding sta ndard 1 4 may be used in e valuatingthe eleme nts of an ATS or TV PA claim. 21Tortur e Actare n otjuri sd ic ti on al de fect s[ , rathe r t]he se pl ead in g i ss ue s i nv ol ve

st at in g c la im s o n wh ic h re li ef ca n b e g ran te d a ndsh ou ldbe rai se d i n m ot io ns fil ed un de r Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 2( b) (6 ).”), n ota la ckof s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on . ATS cla im s g en eral ly requ ire all eg at io ns of s ta te act io n b ecau se th e la w of na ti on s ar e th e ru le s o f co nduc t tha t g ov ernth e aff ai rs of ana ti on , act in g i n i ts na ti on al cap aci ty, in rel at io ns with a no th er n at io n, Co he n , 63 4 F .2dat 3 19 , whe reas TVPA clai m s, b y st atut ory de fin it io n, al way s re qu ire all eg at io ns of

“ actua l o r ap pa ren t au th or it y , or c ol orof l aw.” Co mpa re ATS, 28 U.S.C. § 1 35 0, wi th TVPA, 28 U.S.C. § 1 35 0 n ot e § 2(a ); se e a ls o Ald an a , 41 6 F .3dat 1 24 7 (“ St at e-s po ns or edto rtu re, u nl ik e to rtu re b y pri va te act or s, l ik el y

vi ol at es in te rn at io na l l aw an d i s t he refo re ac ti on ab le un de r th e Ali enTortAct.”) . 1 5 1. Pla in ti ff s’ cla ims br ou gh t u nder

th e ATS Fo r subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on to en te rta in Pla in ti ffs ’ ATS cla im s, the co m pl ai nt s m us t s uf fic ie nt ly ple ad(1) th e p aram il it ari es were s ta te act or s o r were su ffi ci en tl y

co nn ect edto th e Co lo m

bi ango ve rn m en t s o t he y

were ac ti ng un de r The ATS and T PVA provide indepe ndent ac tions and neither pr ovides the exclusive 1 5 reme dy for c laims of torture, a s “a pla intiff may bringdistinct claims for torture unde r ea ch statute.” Aldana , 416 F.3d at 1250; see also Rome ro , 552 F.3d at 1316 (“The same is true f or extrajudicial killi ng , which is ac tionable under the Alien Tort Statute if it is ‘committed in violation of the law of na tions,’ 28 U.S.C. § 1350, and under the Tor ture Ac t as that Act expressly define s it, [ 28 U.S.C. § 1350] note § 3(a ).”) . 22co lo r of

law (o r th atth e war cr im es ex cep ti on to th e st at e act io n re qu ire m en t ap pl ie s) an d (2 ) th e Defen da nt s, o r th ei r ag en ts , con sp ire d wi th th e st at e act or s,

1 6
orth os e act in g u nd er co lo r of law, i n c arrying ou t the to rti ou s ac ts . A fail ur e to al le ge eit he r of

th es e two rel at io ns hi ps is fat al to Pla in ti ffs ’ ATS cla im s. a. All egat io ns of

stat e a ct io n In Gil , Galvis , andLea l , par am il it ary of fic ers are al le ge d t o h av e p erp etrat ed
m ur de r an d t ortu re, wh ic h fo rm th e b as is of t he ir ATS cl ai m s. Th es e p la in ti ffs al le ge th e p aram il it ary are “ pe rm it te d t o e xi st ” an d a re “ as si st ed ” b y th e Co lo m bi ango ve rn m en t. Ad di ti on al ly, th e p la in ti ffs all eg e “ [i]t i s u ni ve rs al ly ackno wled ge d t ha t the reg ul ar m il it ary an d t he civ il go ve rn m en t au th or it ie s i n Co lo m bi a to le rat e th e p aram il it ari es , all ow the m to op erat e, an d o fte n c oo pe rat e, pr ot ectan d/ or

workinco nc ertwith t he m .” Thes e p la in ti ffs als o c on te ndth e pa ram il it ari es are s ta te act or s wh o h ada sym bi ot ic rel at io ns hi p wi thth e Co lo m bi anm il it ary an d t hu s o pe rat edun de r co lo r of law. The pl ai nt iff

s’ con cl us ory

all eg at io n t ha t the param il it ary se cu rity for ces act edun de r co lo r of

law i s n oten ti tl edto be ass um edtru e an d i s i ns uf fic ie ntto al le ge st at e-s po ns or edact io n. Se e Iq ba l , 12 9 S . Ct. at19 51 . Col om bi a’s m ere

In Garcia , which we discuss below, the a lleg ed per petrators of the torturewer e the 1 6 local police. T he par

ties do not dispute that the local police we re state actor s. 23“ reg is tra ti on an d t ol erat io n o f pr iv at e se curit y for ces do es no t tran sf

orm th os e fo rces ’ act s i nt o s ta te act s.” Ald an a , 41 6 F .3dat 1 24 8. Al le ga ti on s t he Co lo m bi an go ve rn m en t t ol erat edan d p erm it te d t he pa ram il it ary fo rces to ex is t ar e in su ffi ci en t to pl eadth e p aram il it ary fo rces were s ta te act or s. Th e p la in ti ffs m ak e th e n ak ed al le ga ti on th e p aram il it ari es were i n asym bi ot ic rel at io ns hi p wi thth e Co lo m bi an go ve rn m en t an d t hu s wer e st at e act or s. Nev erthe le ss , intes ti ng th e su ffi ci en cy of th e p la in ti ff’s al le ga ti on s, we d o n otcred itsu chco nc lu so ry all eg at io ns as t ru e. Se e Iq ba l , 12 9 S . Ct. at19 51 . W e d em an d a ll eg at io ns of asym bi ot ic rel at io ns hi p th at“ in vo lv es th e to rtu re o r ki ll in g a ll eg edinth e co m pl ai ntto sat is fy

th e requi rem en t o f st at e act io n.” Romer o , 55 2 F .3dat 1 31 7. Th ere i s n o s ug ge st io n th e Co lo m

bi ango ve rn m en t was in vo lv edin , m uc h l es s awa re o f, th e m

ur de r an d to rtu re al le ge d i n t he co m pl ai nt s. Th e p la in ti ffs ’ “ fo rm ul ai c rec it at io n,” Two mbl y , 55 0 U.S. at55 5, 1 27 S. Ct. at19 65 , th atth e p aram il it ary fo rces were i n a sym bi ot ic rel at io ns hi p a ndwere as si st edby the Co lo m bi ango ve rn m en t, ab se nt an y factua l al le ga ti on s t o s up po rt t hi s l eg al co nc lu si on , is in su ffi ci en t t o s ta te an al le ga ti on of s ta te act io n t ha t i s p laus ib le on it s fa ce. Se e Iq ba l , 12 9 S . Ct. at 19 50 . 1 7
The Leal complaint notes Carlos Castano, the f ounder a nd leade r of the AUC, 1 7 Colombi a’s larg est para

milit ary group, “lives in hidingand he g oes to great pains to keep his wher eabouts sec ret, e ven fr om the g overnme nt.” It is unclear the extent to which the AUC act 24Ourin qu iry do es no t s to p h ere, h owe ve r, be cau se , un de r th e ATS, th e

pl ai nt iff s n eedno t p le adst at e act io n fo r cl ai m s o f to rtu re an d m ur de r pe rp etrat ed in th e co ur se of war cri m es . Se e Ka di c , 70 F.3dat 2 42 -4 3 (h ol di ng war cri m es

“ co m m it te d i n t he co ur se of h os ti li ti es ” v io la te d fu nd am en ta l i nt ern at io na l l aw an d th us were ac ti on ab le un de r th e ATS). Som e act s, s uc h a s t ortu re an d m ur de r 1 8
co m m it te d i n t he co ur se of wa r cri m es , vi ol at e th e la w of n at io ns reg ard le ss of whe th er the pe rp etrat oract edun de r co lo r of law o f a fo rei gn na ti on or o nl y as a pr iv at e in di vi du al . Romer o , 55 2 F .3dat 1 31 6; Ka di c , 70 F.3dat 2 39 , 24 3 (“ [T]ortu re an d s umm ary ex ecu ti on–wh enno t p erp etrat edinth e co ur se of ge no ci de or wa r cri m es –a re p ro sc rib edby int ern at io na l l aw on ly whe n c omm it te d by sta te off

ic ia ls or u nd er co lo r of

law.”) . The war c rimes ex cep ti on di sp en se s with t he st at e act io n re qu ire m en t fo r cl ai m s und er the ATS. Hav in g fa il edto co nn ectth e p aram il it ari es with t he Co lo m bi ango ve rn m en t, th e p la in ti ffs advanc e a s eco ndth eo ry an d arg ue th e al le ge d m

ur de r an d t ortu re oc cu rreddu rin g t he co ur se of an a rm edciv il co nf li ct , th ereb y

co ns ti tu ti ng war cri m es th atne ga te th e n eedforst at e act io n. Th e p la in ti ffs su gg es t the war cri m es under c olor of law when its founder and lea der “ g oes to great pains” to keep his location conce aled f

rom the Colombian gove rnment. On the other

hand, tortureand murde r per petrated by

private a ctors is ac tionable under 1 8 the TVPA only

if committed under a ctual or a ppare nt authority , or color of law. 28 U.S.C. § 1350 note § 2(a ). We discuss the TVPA cla ims in the followingsection. 25ex cep ti on sh ou ldap pl y to pl ai nt iff

s’ m ur de r an d t orture b ecau se , as n on co m ba ta nt s i n aciv il war, th ey were t arg et edfor

vi ol en ce t o fu rth er Defe nd an ts ’ bu si ne ss in te res ts inbe co min g u ni on -fre e, an d t he us e o f op envi ol en ce t o acco m pl is h t hi s en d o ccu rredas ares ul t o f a rag in g c iv il war. W e co nc lu de th e war cr im es ex cep ti on to th e st at e act io n re qu ire m en t i s n ot ap pl ic ab le to th e p la in ti ffs be cau se th e al le ge d m ur de r an d t ortu re was no t co m m it te d i n t he co ur se of aciv il war. W e rejectth e p la in ti ffs ’ arg um en t tha t i t i s su ffi ci en t fo r th e p ur

po se s o f ATS juri sd ic ti on th atth e v io la ti on pe rp etrat edby a no n- st at e act orm erel y

oc cu r du rin g a n a rm edciv il co nf li ct . If th e war cr im es ex cep ti on to th e st at e act io n re qu ire m en t p erm it te d a ll no n- st at e to rtu re cl ai m s oc cu rri ng du rin g ape rio d o f ci vi l d is or de r, fed eral co urts wou ldbe op ento la wsu it s o ccu rri ng du rin g a ny peri odof c iv il un res t i n afor ei gnco un try. T he Supr em e Co urt’s re m in de r to ex erci se “ vi gi la ntdo orke ep in g” pe rs ua de s u s t he war cri m es ex cep ti on ap pl ie s o nl y to cla im s o f no n- st at e to rtu re tha t wer e p erp etrat ed in th e co ur se of h os ti li ti es . Se e So sa , 54 2 U.S. at72 9, 1 24 S. Ct. at27 64 ; Ka di c , 70 F.3dat 2 42 -4 3. In th is cas e th ere i s n o s ug ge st io n t he pl ai nt iff s’ m ur de r an d to rtu re was pe rp etrat edbe cau se of t he on go in g c iv il war o r in th e co ur se of c iv il war cl as he s. Th e ci vi l warpro vi de d t he ba ck gr ou ndforth e unf ortu na te ev en ts

26th atun fo ld ed , bu t the civ il war d idno t p reci pi ta te th e v io le nc e th atbe fel l the

pl ai nt iff s. Insu m , th e war cr im es ex cep ti on is no t ap pl ic ab le to th e p la in ti ffs ; thu s t he y m us t s uf fic ie nt ly alle ge st at e act io n. An d a s d is cu ss edab ov e, th e p la in ti ffs ha ve no t s uf fic ie nt ly ple d s ta te act io n. Acco rd in gl y , we con cl ud e th e d is tri ctco urt d id no t err in di sm is si ng th e ATS cl ai m s i n t he Gil , Galvis , andLea l co m pl ai nt s fo r la ckof f ed eral subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on . b. All egat io ns of

co ns pi ra cy In Gar ci a , th e co m

pl ai ntall eg es a co ns pi racy betweenth e lo cal po li ce, rathe r th anpa ram il it ary of fic ers , andth e b ot tl in g fa ci li ty’ s m an ag em en t. Pl ai nt iff s Lui s Edua rd o Gar ci a, Alv aro Gon zal ez, an d J os é Dom in go Flo res are thr ee m em be rs of t he lo cal un io n e xe cu ti ve bo ard . In 1 99 5, p la in ti ffs pa rti ci pa te d i n a 12 0- ho urst rik e ag ai ns t the Pan am co Co lo m bi a b ot tl in g fa ci li ty in Bu cara m an ga , aft er Pa na m co ren eg edon it s o bl ig at io ns un de r a l ab orag reem en t wi th th e uni on . Sh ortl y aft er the st rik e, th e p la in ti ffs all eg e th e ch ie f of sec ur it y forth e Bu cara m an gafaci li ty, Jo sé Alejo Apo nt e, fal se ly tol d the lo cal po li ce h e fo un d a bo m b i n t he faci li ty, an d h e acc us edfiv e m em be rs of t he lo cal un io n e xe cu ti ve bo ard , in cl ud in g Gar ci a, Gon zal ez, an d F lo res , of p la nt in g the bo m b. OnMarc h 6 , 19 96 , th e p ol ic e arr es te d t he th ree m en . Whi le intra ns itto th e jail , Flo res was 27rep eat ed ly andbru ta ll y be at enby pol ic e an d was th reat en edat g un po in t. As a res ul t o f th e fal se ch arg es fil edby Apo nt e, th e p la in ti ffs were i nc arce rat edina fil th y an d d an ge ro us Co lo m

bi anpri so n fo r si x m on th s. Th ey were re le as edaft er a reg io na l p ro se cu to r fo un d t he ch arg es “ to be co m pl et el y witho utba si s.” Th e pl ai nt iff s al le ge “ Apo nt e’s pl anne ces sa ril y requi redth e co op erat io n a nd co m pl ic it y of t he arre st in g p ol ic e o ffi cers , si nc e th e o ffi cers ha d t o b e wil li ng to arre stan d i m

pr is on th e uni onlea de rs witho utan y ev id en ce o f th e n on -ex is te nt bo m b.” There fo re, “ [b ]asedon in fo rm at io n a ndbe li ef,” the pl ai nt iff s al le ge Apo nt e co ns pi redwith t he arre st in g p ol ic e o ffi cers to un la wfu ll y arre st , det ai n, an d i m pr is on th e p la in ti ffs . W e rei te rat e th atto st at e a p laus ib le cla im forrel ie f, th e p la in ti ffs m us t pl ead“ factua l co nt en t tha t al lo ws the co urt t o draw the reas on ab le in fere nc e th at th e d efen da ntis li ab le forth e m is co nduc t al le ge d.” Iq ba l , 12 9 S . Ct. at19 49 . Ru le 8(a )(2 ) requi res “ a sh ort an d p la in st at em en t o f th e cl ai m sh owi ng th atth e pl ead er i s en ti tl edto rel ie f,” i n o rd er t o “ gi ve th e d efen dantfai r no ti ce o f wha t the . . . clai m is an d t he gro un ds up on whi ch itres ts .” Two mbl y , 55 0 U.S. at55 5, 1 27 S. Ct . at 1 96 4. Atth e sa m e ti m e, ho wev er, the co m pl ai ntm us t p le ad“ m or e th an anun ad orne d, the -d efen da nt -u nl awfu ll y -h arm ed -m e.” Iqb al , 12 9 S . Ct. at19 49 . Fu rth erm or e, un warra nt edde du ct io ns of f actina co m

pl ai ntare n otadm it te d a s 28tru e fo r th e p ur po se of t es ti ng th e su ffi ci en cy of t he all eg at io ns . Ald

an a , 41 6 F .3d at12 48 , andth e fac ts as p le d m us t s ta te a cl ai m

forrel ie f th atis pl au si bl e o n i ts face , se e Iq ba l , 12 9 S . Ct. at19 50 . Here, the Gar ci a pl ai nt iff s’ att enua te d c ha inof c on sp ira cy fai ls to nu dg e th ei r cl ai m s ac ro ss th e li ne fro m co nc ei vabl e to pl au si bl e. Two mbl y , 55 0 U.S. at 57 0, 1 27 S. Ct. at19 74 . Firs t, wh il e th e p la in ti ffs all eg e “ Apo nt e’s pl an ne ces sa ril y

requi redth e co op erat io n a ndco m pl ic it y of t he arre st in g p ol ic e of fic ers ,” we are n otrequi redto adm itas t ru e th is un warrant edde du ct io n o f fac t. Seco nd , th e p la in ti ffs ’ al le ga ti on s o f co ns pi racy are “ba se d o n i nf orm at io n a nd be li ef,” an d fa il to pro vi de an y factua l co nt en t tha t al lo ws u s “ to dra w th e reas on ab le in fere nc e th atth e d efen da ntis li ab le forth e m is co nduc t al le ge d.” Iq ba l , 12 9 S . Ct. at19 49 . Spe ci fic al ly, th es e p la in ti ffs all eg e “ [t]he ba si s fo r th e co ns pi racy was ei th er tha t Ap on te arra ng edto pro vi de pa ym en t t o the off ic ers for th ei r pa rti ci pa ti on , or t ha t the off ic ers ha d ash aredpu rp os e with Ap on te to un la wfu ll y

arre stan d d et ai n P la in ti ffs be cau se th ey were uni onoff

ic ia ls an d h ad be enbrand edby Panam co off ic ia ls as l eft is t g ue ril la s.” Th e p rem is e fo r th e co ns pi racy is al le ge d t o b e ei th er p aym en t o f m on ey or ash aredid eo lo gy. The va gu e an d c on cl us ory

na tu re o f th es e al le ga ti on s i s i ns uf fic ie ntto st at e a cl ai m

for rel ie f, an d “ wil l n otdo .” Two mbl y , 55 0 U.S. at55 5, 1 27 S. Ct. at19 65 . 29Fu rth erm or e, th e co m pl ai ntfai ls to all eg e whe n o r wit h wh om Apo nt e en te redin to a co ns pi racy to a rres t, d et ai n, an d h arm th e p la in ti ffs . The s co pe of th e co ns pi racy andit s p art ic ip an ts are u nd efi ne d. Th ere a re n o a ll eg at io ns th e tre atm en t the pl ai nt iff

s re cei ve d a t the ha nd s o f th e lo cal po li ce an d i n p ris onwas withi n t he sco pe of t he co ns pi racy. Add it io na ll y , ass um in g Ap on te ev en co ns pi redwith t he lo cal po li ce t o a rres t the pl ai nt iff s, thi s ac ti on alo ne is in su ffi ci en t t o fo rm

th e b as is of an ATS cl ai m , see So sa , 54 2 U.S. at73 8, 1 24 S. Ct . at 2 76 9 (h ol di ng “ a si ng le il le ga l d et en ti onof l es s t ha n aday , fol lo wedby the tra ns fer o f cu st od y

to lawf ul au th or it ie s an d apro m ptarra ig nm en t, v io la te s n o no rm of c us to m ary in te rn at io na l l aw so well de fin edas t o s up po rt t he crea ti on of a fed eral rem edy ”), an d t he re i s n o a ll eg at io n t he subs eque ntsi x- m on th im pr is on m en t an d m is tre atm en t was pa rt o f th e co ns pi racy. The Gar ci a pl ai nt iff s, th us , fai l t o s ta te a pl au si bl e cl ai m forrel ie f ag ai ns t the Pan am co Defen dant s fo r a vi ol at io n o f th e la w of n at io ns . Se e 28 U.S.C. § 1 35 0. We con cl ud e th e d is tri ct co urt d idno t err in di sm is si ng th e ATS cl ai m s i n t he Gar ci a co m pl ai ntforlac k o f subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on . 2. Pla in ti ff s’ cla ims br ou gh t u nder

th e TVPA Pl ai nt iff s al le ge th e sa m e o pe rat iv e fac ts th atga ve ris e to ATS vi ol at io ns al so ga ve ris e to TVPA vi ol at io ns . It i s n otun co m m on forpl ai nt iff

s t o a ss ertATS 30an d TVPA cl ai m s t og ethe r. Se e, e.g . , Romer o , 55 2 F .3dat 1 30 9 (a ss ert in g ATS

an d TVPA cl ai m s b as edon th e sa m e o pe rat iv e fac ts ); Ald an a , 41 6 F .3d12 46 (s am e); Kh ul uma ni v. Bar clayNa t. Ba nk Ltd
. , 50 4 F .3d25 4 (2 d C ir. 2 00 7) (sa m e); Bea na l v. Fr eep or t-Mc

Mor an , Inc
. , 19 7 F .3d16 1 (5 th Cir . 19 99 ) (s am e). The di st ric t co urt d et erm in edth ere was no subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on forth e ATS cl ai m s, an d b ecau se ATS juri sd ic ti on was l ack in g, the co urt co nc lu de d t he TVPA cl ai m s al so fai le d fo r wan t o f subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on . Si na ltra in al II , 47 4 F . Supp . 2dat 1 30 1 (“ Cl ai m s fo r to rtu re m ay be en te rta in ed[un de r th e TVPA] on ly if th ey fal l wi th in th e juri sd ic ti on co nf erre d b y th e AT[S].”). W e co nc lu de th e di st ric t co urt erredindi sm is si ng th e TVPA cla im s fo r wan t o f subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on be cau se juri sd ic ti on ov er the TVPA clai m s i s co nf erre d b y 28 U.S.C. § 1 33 1 i n t hi s ca se . Se e Rome ro , 55 2 F .3dat 1 31 5. Th eref or e o urin qu iry is n ot whe th er s ub

ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on is lac ki ng , bu t wh ethe r th e TVPA cla im s s ta te a cl ai m forrel ie f. In o th er wo rd s, re li ef fro m a co m pl ai ntth atfai ls to su ffi ci en tl y 1 9
Def endants moved to dismiss Pl aintiffs’ c laims for lac k of subject matter jurisdiction; 1 9 howeve r, the TVPA c laims are pr operly addre ssed under

a motion to dism iss for fa ilure to state a claim for r elief. The failureto state a c laim for re lief pre sents a pure ly leg al question. Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp. , 123 F.3d 1353, 1367 ( 11th Cir. 1997) (“F acia l challeng es to the leg al suffic iency

of a c laim or defe nse, such a s a motion to dism iss based on fa ilure to state a claim for r elief, . . . a lway s prese nt[ ] a purely leg al question; there a

re no issues of

fac t beca use the alleg ations contained in the ple adingare presumed to betrue.” (footnote omitted)). We have discretion to addr ess pure questions of law on a ppeal, e ven if such que stions are not re solved by the district court. See F

lint Elec. Mem bership Corp. v. W hitworth , 68 F.3d 1309, 1314 n.7 ( 11th Cir. 1995) (“A lthough the e ffe ct of [a re cent Ele venth Circuit case ] was not resolved in the 31pl eadth e el em en ts of aTVPA clai m sh ou ldbe rai se d i n am ot io n fi le d u nd er Ru le 12 (b )(6 ), rathe r th an12 (b )(1 ). Se e Ste el Co . v. Cit iz en s f

or a Bet te r En v’t , 52 3 U.S. 83 , 96 , 11 8 S . Ct. 1 00 3, 1 01 3 (1 99 8) (ex pl ai ni ng “ th e n on ex is te nc e o f a cau se of act io n was no pro pe r ba si s fo r a juri sd ic ti on al di sm is sa l” ); se e a ls o Will ia mso n v. Tu cker , 64 5 F .2d40 4, 4 15 (5th C ir. M ay 20 , 19 81 ) (“ Ju di ci al eco no m y is be st pr om ot edwhen th e ex is te nc e o f a fed eral rig htis di rect ly reach edan d, wh ere n o cl ai m is fou ndto ex is t, the cas e is di sm is se d o n t he m eri ts .”). To s urvi ve a m ot io n t o d is m is s fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m up on whi ch rel ie f can be gra nt edon th e TVPA cla im s, Pl ai nt iff s m us t s uf fic ie nt ly alle ge (1) th e pa ram il it ari es were s ta te act or s o r were s uf fic ie nt ly conne ct edto th e Co lo m bi an go ve rn m en t s o t he y

were ac ti ng un de r co lo r of law an d (2 ) th e Defen da nt s, o r th ei r ag en ts , con sp ire d wi th th e st at e act or s, o r th os e act in g u nd er co lo r of law, i n carry in g o utth e st at e-s po ns or edto rtu re. Se e 28 U.S.C. § 1 35 0 n ot e § 2(a ). district court, we have the authority to addre ss this pure question of law on a ppeal.” ); see also Singleton v. W

ulff , 428 U.S. 106, 121, 96 S. C t. 2868, 2877 (1976) (“ The matter of what questions may

be take n up and re solved for the first time on appea l is one left primarily to the discretion of the courts of a ppeals, to be e x erc ised on the fa cts of individual case s.”); Acc ess Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co. , 385 F.3d 1324, 1332 ( 11th Cir. 2004) (outlining five g ener al circ umstances unde r which issues may be ra ised for the first time on appea l).

32Pl ai nt iff

s fa il edto do so . As di sc us se d abo ve , th e Gil , Galvis , and Lea l pl ai nt iff s fai l t o s uf fic ie nt ly ple adth e p aram il it ary fo rces were ac ti ng un de r co lo r of law. Mer e to le rat io n o f th e p aram il it ary fo rces do es no t tran sf orm su ch for ces ’ act s i nt o st at e act s, Ald

an a , 41 6 F .3dat 1 24 8; m or eo ve r th ere are n o a ll eg at io ns th e Co lo m bi ango ve rn m en t was aware o f, m uc h l es s co m

pl ic itin , th e m

ur de r an d to rtu re Pl ai nt iff

s al le ge inth ei r co m

pl ai nt s. Ad di ti on al ly, th e Gar ci a pl ai nt iff s fa il to su ffi ci en tl y

all eg e th e Pan am co Defen da nt s, o r th ei r ag en ts , con sp ire d wi th th e lo cal po li ce i n c arrying ou t the all eg edto rtu re. The Gar ci a pl ai nt iff s’ vag ue an d co nc lu so ry

all eg at io ns of aco ns pi racy do no t s ta te a cl ai m forrel ie f th atis pl au si bl e o n i ts face , se e Iq ba l , 12 9 S . Ct. at19 50 , andth ey fai l t o d et ai l an y factua l al le ga ti on s “ to rai se a ri gh t t o re li ef ab ov e th e sp ecu la ti ve lev el ,” Two mbl y , 55 0 U.S. at55 5, 1 27 S. Ct. at19 65 . W e, th eref or e, va cat e th e d is tri ctco urt’s di sm is sa l o f th e TVPA cla im s fo r wan t o f juri sd ic ti onan d i ns tru ctth e co urt t o di sm is s t he TVPA clai m s fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m up on whi ch rel ie f can be gr an te d. IV. CONCLUSION Pl ai nt iff s’ com pl ai nt s o ut li ne a li ta ny of u nf ortu na te ev en ts oc curri ng ina co un try tha t Pl ai nt iff

s d es cri be as e xp eri en ci ng on go in g c iv il un res t an d l ack in g a ro bu stleg al syste m . Neverth el es s, as ex pl ai ne d abo ve , th e Gil , Galvis , and Lea l 33pl ai nt iff

s fa il to su ffi ci en tl y

pl eadfactua l al le ga ti on s t o c on ne ctth e p aram il it ary fo rces , who pe rp etrat edth e wro ng fu l ac ts , with t he Co lo m bi ango ve rn m en t. Fu rth erm or e, th e Gar ci a pl ai nt iff s fa il to su ffi ci en tl y

pl eadfactua l al le ga ti on s t o co nn ectth e Pan am co Defen da nt s t o a ct io nabl e to rtu re. W e aff irm th e d is m is sa l o f th e ATS cl ai m s fo r la ckof s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on . W e v acat e th e d is m is sa l o f th e TVPA cla im s fo r wan t o f juri sd ic ti on an d i ns tru ctth e d is tri ctco urt t o e nt er a di sm is sa l fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m up on whi ch rel ie f can be gra nt ed . AFFIRMED I N PART, VAC ATED AND REMANDED IN PART.

34