Opinion ID: 2750493
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Foreign Affairs Doctrine

Text: The district court concluded that the foreign affairs doctrine precluded plaintiffs’ wrongful death, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. See Mujica, 381 F. Supp. 2d at 1187–88. While recognizing that tort law is within the traditional competence of the states, the district court reasoned that the strong federal foreign policy interests in this case, as evidenced by the Supplemental Statement of Interest filed by the United States, outweighed the weak interests of California concerning plaintiffs’ tort claims. Id.; see also Am. Ins. Ass’n v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396 (2003). I would affirm this portion of the district court’s decision. The majority, however, expressly declines to examine whether dismissal on the basis of the foreign affairs doctrine was appropriate. 2013 WL 3873960 (N.D. Ala. July 25, 2013), address a problem of potentially inconsistent judgments, which is not relevant here, see Jovic v. L-3 Servs., Inc., — F. Supp. 3d —, 2014 WL 4748614 at  (N.D. Ill. Sep. 24, 2014) (observing that the Croatian military leaders who participated in Operation Storm, which the U.S. defendants allegedly helped plan and execute, were convicted of war crimes, but their convictions were later overturned), or are otherwise distinguishable, see Doe I v. Cisco Sys., Inc., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2014 WL 4446381 at  (N.D. Cal. Sep. 5, 2014) (ruling that the plaintiffs had failed to establish the defendants “directed, planned, or committed the violations that occurred in China”); see also In re South African Apartheid Litig., 2013 WL 6813877 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 2013) (relating to Balintulo, a vicarious liability case). For the foregoing reasons, the various district court decisions on which the majority relies are of little persuasive value. MUJICA V. AIRSCAN 83