Opinion ID: 776720
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ATCA Claims

Text: 20 The district court dismissed all of the appellants' claims under the ATCA 29 on two grounds. First, the district court declared the claims statutorily barred. Second, the district court held that the ATCA created federal jurisdiction, but did not provide a cause of action. We reverse on both grounds and remand. 21 The ATCA specifies no statute of limitations. In such situations, courts apply the limitations period provided by the jurisdiction in which they sit unless a rule from elsewhere in federal law clearly provides a closer analogy than available state statutes, and when the federal policies at stake and the practicalities of litigation make that rule a significantly more appropriate vehicle for interstitial lawmaking. 30 22 One district court in this circuit held, in 1987, that the closest federal analogy to the ATCA was 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which, in turn, borrows the state statute of limitations. 31 At that time, the court was probably correct. In 1992, however, Congress passed the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA). 32 The courts that have considered the limitations period applicable to the ATCA since the passage of the TVPA have either left open the question of whether the TVPA provides the closest federal analogy or have adopted its ten-year statute of limitations. 33 The Ninth Circuit has thus far declined to rule on the issue. 34 We are squarely faced with the issue here, and we decide that the statute of limitations applicable to the ATCA is that provided by the TVPA. 23 The TVPA, like the ATCA, furthers the protection of human rights and helps carry out obligations of the United States under the United Nations Charter and other international agreements pertaining to the protection of human rights. 35 Moreover, it employs a similar mechanism for carrying out these goals: civil actions. The provisions of the TVPA were added to the ATCA, further indicating the close relationship between the two statutes. All these factors point towards borrowing the TVPA's statute of limitations for the ATCA. 36 In addition, the realities of litigating claims brought under the ATCA, and the federal interest in providing a remedy, also point towards adopting a uniform — and a generous — statute of limitations. 37 The nature of the violations suffered by those the ATCA, like the TVPA, was designed to protect will tend to preclude filings in United States courts within a short time. Accordingly, we reject the district court's adoption of the California statute of limitations and adopt the ten-year statute of limitations provided by the TVPA instead. Applying that statute, the Papas' claims are timely. 24 We also reject the district court's second reason for dismissing the Papas' ATCA claims. Relying on a case from the Southern District of Texas, a case the Appellees cite before this court as well, the district court concluded that the ATCA provides no cause of action, but merely confers jurisdiction upon the federal courts. Relying on this conclusion, the court reasoned that plaintiffs must cite a statute or treaty that creates a cause of action in order to succeed on an ATCA claim. 38 Similar reasoning was rejected by the Ninth Circuit in 1994. 39 Certainly, plaintiffs must allege a violation of specific, universal, and obligatory international norms as part of an ATCA claim. 40 They need not, however, cite a portion of a specific treaty or another United States statute in order to establish a cause of action, as the district court required. 41 We remand to the district court in order to allow it to apply the applicable standard.