Case Name: John DOE I; John Doe II; John Doe III, individually and on behalf of proposed class members; Global Exchange, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NESTLE USA, INC.; Archer Daniels Midland Company; Cargill Incorporated Company; Cargill Cocoa, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-19
Citations: 738 F.3d 1048
Docket Number: No. 10-56739
Parties: John DOE I; John Doe II; John Doe III, individually and on behalf of proposed class members; Global Exchange, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NESTLE USA, INC.; Archer Daniels Midland Company; Cargill Incorporated Company; Cargill Cocoa, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: D.W. NELSON, KIM McLANE WARDLAW, and JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 738
Pages: 1048–1051

Head Matter:
John DOE I; John Doe II; John Doe III, individually and on behalf of proposed class members; Global Exchange, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NESTLE USA, INC.; Archer Daniels Midland Company; Cargill Incorporated Company; Cargill Cocoa, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-56739.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Dec. 2, 2013.
Filed Dec. 19, 2013.
Terrence Patrick Collingsworth, Conrad & Scherer, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Paul Hoffman (argued), Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris Hoffman & Harrison, LLP, Venice, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Craig A. Hoover and Christopher Todd Handman, Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, Washington, D.C.; Julie A. Shepard, Jenner & Block, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Jonathan H. Blavin and Kristin Linsley Myles, Munger Tolies & Olson, LLP, San Francisco, CA; Brad D. Brian and Daniel Paul Collins, Munger Tolies & Olson, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Andrew John Pincus (argued), Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, D.C.; Lee H. Rubin, Mayer Brown LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Susan Hannah Farbstein, International Human Rights Clinic, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA, for Amici Curiae Professors of Legal History.
Marco Simons, Earthrights International, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Earthrights International.
Jennifer M. Green, Human Rights Litigation and International Advocacy Clinic, University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, MN, for Amici Curiae Nuremberg Scholars.
David J. Scheffer, Northwestern University School of Law, Bluhm Legal Clinic, Center for International Human Rights, Chicago, IL, for Amicus Curiae David J. Scheffer.
Peter Bowman Rutledge, Athens, GA, for Amici Curiae Chamber of Commerce .of the United States of America and The National Foreign Trade Council.
Meir Feder, Jones Day, New York, NY, for Amici Curiae National Association of Manufacturers and Professors of International and Foreign Relations Law and Federal Jurisdiction.
James Evan Berger and Charlene Sun, King & Spalding, LLP, New York, NY; Rebecca Kelder Myers, Vandenberg & Feliu LLP, New York, NY; Todd Tyler Williams, Paul Hastings LLP, New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae United States Council for International Business.
William Aceves, California Western School of Law, San Diego, CA, for Amici Curiae International Law Scholars.
Jonathan Massey, Massey & Gail LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae Nuremberg Historians and International Lawyers.
Before: D.W. NELSON, KIM McLANE WARDLAW, and JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
Plaintiff-appellants appeal the district court's order dismissing their First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In light of intervening developments in the law, we conclude that corporations can face liability for claims brought under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1659, 1669, 185 L.Ed.2d 671 (2013) (suggesting in dicta that corporations may be liable under ATS so long as presumption against extraterritorial application is overcome); Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC, 671 F.3d 736, 761 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc) (holding that corporations may be liable under ATS), vacated on other grounds, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1995, 185 L.Ed.2d 863 (2013); Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 654 F.3d 11, 41 (D.C.Cir.2011) (same), vacated on other grounds, 527 Fed.Appx. 7 (D.C.Cir.2013); Flomo v. Firestone Natural Rubber Co., 643 F.3d 1013, 1020-21 (7th Cir.2011) (same). Additionally, the district court erred in requiring plaintiff-appellants to allege specific intent in order to satisfy the applicable purpose mens red standard. Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., 582 F.3d 244, 259 (2d Cir.2009).
Furthermore, we grant plaintiff-appellants leave to amend their complaint in light of recent authority regarding the extraterritorial reach of the Alien Tort Statute and the actus reus standard for aiding and abetting. Kiobel, 133 S.Ct. at 1669; Prosecutor v. Charles Ghankay Taylor, Case No. SCSL-03-01-A Judgment, at ¶ 475 (SCSL Sept. 26, 2013) ("[T]he' actus reus of aiding and abetting liability is established by assistance that has á substantial effect on the crimes, not the particular manner in which such assistance is provided."); Prosecutor v. Perisic, Case No. IT-04-81-A Judgment, at ¶ 36 & n. 97 (ICTY Feb. 28, 2013) (holding that "specific direction remains an element of the actus reus of aiding and abetting," but noting that "specific direction may be addressed implicitly in the context of analysing substantial contribution").
Accordingly, the order of the district court is hereby VACATED, and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order. This panel retains jurisdiction over any other appeals in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.