391 F.Supp.

2d 10

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Ilham Nassir IBRAHIM, et al., Plaintis,
!.
"I"AN #$RP$RA"I$N, et al., %eendants.

Civ.A. No. 04-1248!"#.

Au$. 12, 200%.

&'12( #$&NS'() ). *almer +oret, ,-e )a. +irm of ). *almer +oret,
*C, C-ev/ C-ase, 0D, Crai$ ,. !ones, 1dmond 2 !ones, ))*, Atlanta,
3A, Susan ). 4ur5e, 4ur5e */le ))C, *-iladel6-ia, *A, for *laintiffs
Ari S-lomo 7/melman, 8illiams 2 Connoll/, 8as-in$ton, DC, !o-n +.
9:Connor, !r., Ste6toe 2 !o-nson, ).).*., 8as-in$ton, DC, for
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

*&%+') "941",S9N, District !ud$e.

*laintiffs sue see5in$ com6ensation from t.o 6rivate $overnment
contractors for alle$ed acts of torture inflicted u6on t-em at t-e Abu
3-raib 6rison in ;ra<. Defendants move to dismiss on a number of
$rounds. ,-eir motion must be $ranted as to most counts. ;t .ill be
denied -o.ever, as to several of 6laintiffs common la. claims.

Background

*laintiffs are seven ;ra<i nationals .-o alle$e t-at t-e/ or t-eir late
-usbands .ere tortured .-ile detained b/ t-e U.S. militar/ at t-e Abu
3-raib 6rison in ;ra<. Defendants are 6rivate $overnment contractors
.-o 6rovided inter6reters ,itan# and interro$ators CAC;# to t-e U.S.
militar/ in ;ra<. *laintiffs a66arentl/ concede t-at t-e/ cannot sue t-e
U.S. 3overnment because of soverei$n immunit/.

*laintiffs alle$ations are broad and serious. ,-e/ assert t-at defendants
and=or t-eir a$ents tortured one or more of t-em b/> beatin$ t-em?
de6rivin$ t-em of food and .ater? sub@ectin$ t-em to lon$ 6eriods of
eAcessive noise? forcin$ t-em to be na5ed for 6rolon$ed 6eriods? -oldin$
a 6istol .-ic- turned out to be unloaded# to t-e -ead of one of t-em
and 6ullin$ t-e tri$$er? t-reatenin$ to attac5 t-em .it- do$s? eA6osin$
t-em to cold for 6rolon$ed 6eriods? urinatin$ on t-em? de6rivin$ t-em of
slee6? ma5in$ t-em listen to loud music? 6-oto$ra6-in$ t-em .-ile
na5ed? forcin$ t-em to .itness t-e abuse of ot-er 6risoners, includin$
ra6e, seAual abuse, beatin$s and attac5s b/ do$s? $ou$in$ out an e/e?
brea5in$ a le$? electrocutin$ one of t-em? s6earin$ one of t-em? forcin$
one of t-em to .ear .omen s under.ear over -is -ead? -avin$ .omen
soldiers order &'1B( one of t-em to ta5e off -is clot-es and t-en beatin$
-im .-en -e refused to do so? forbiddin$ one of t-em to 6ra/,
.it--oldin$ food durin$ "amadan, and ot-er.ise ridiculin$ and
mistreatin$ -im for -is reli$ious beliefs? and falsel/ tellin$ one of t-em
t-at -is famil/ members -ad been 5illed.

*laintiffs assert claims under t-e Alien ,ort Statute, ";C9, $overnment
contractin$ la.s, and t-e common la. of assault and batter/, .ron$ful
deat-, false im6risonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
conversion, and ne$li$ence. ,-e motion to dismiss $enerall/ asserts
lac5 of @urisdiction and failure to state a claim u6on .-ic- relief can be
$ranted. 9f 6articular interest are defendants submissions t-at 6laintiffs
claims 6resent non-@usticiable 6olitical <uestions, t-at Ct-e la. of nationsD
under t-e Alien ,ort Statute does not cover torture b/ non-state actors,
and t-at 6laintiffs common la. tort claims are 6reem6ted b/ t-e
$overnment contractor defense.

Analysis

Legal standard

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under "ule 12b#E# .ill be
$ranted onl/ if it Ca66ears be/ond doubt t-at t-e 6laintiff can 6rove no
set of facts in su66ort of -is claim .-ic- .ould entitle -im to
relief.D Conley v. Gibson, B%% U.S. 41, 4%-4E, F8 S.Ct. GG, 2 ).1d.2d 80
1G%F#. ,-e com6laint .ill be construed in t-e li$-t most favorable to t-e
6laintiff, and t-e 6laintiff .ill -ave Ct-e benefit of all inferences t-at can
be derived from t-e facts alle$ed.D Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp.,
1E +.Bd 12F1, 12FE D.C.Cir.1GG4# internal citations omitted#. 9n t-e
ot-er -and, a court ma/ acce6t Cneit-er Hinferences dra.n b/ 6laintiffs if
suc- inferences are unsu66orted b/ t-e facts set out in t-e com6laint,:
nor Hle$al conclusions cast in t-e form of factual alle$ations.: D Browning
v. Clinton, 2G2 +.Bd 2B%, 242 D.C.Cir.2002# <uotin$ Io.al, 1E +.Bd at
12F%#.

A motion to dismiss for lac5 of @urisdiction under "ule 12b#1# is treated
li5e a "ule 12b#E# motion. 1.$., Barr v. Clinton, BF0 +.Bd 11GE, 11GG
D.C.Cir.2004#. ,o survive a "ule 12b#1# motion, a 6laintiff -as t-e
burden of establis-in$ t-at @urisdiction is 6ro6er. 1.$.,Macharia v. United
States, BB4 +.Bd E1, EF-E8 D.C.Cir.200B#.

Alien Tort Statute Claim

*laintiffs assert t-at defendants violated t-e Cla. of nationsD as
described in t-e Alien ,ort Statute A,S#, 28 U.S.C. J 1B%0. ,-e A,S
6rovides> C,-e district courts s-all -ave ori$inal @urisdiction of an/ civil
action b/ an alien for a tort onl/, committed in violation of t-e la. of
nations or a treat/ of t-e United States.D In Sosa v. Alvare!
Machain, %42 U.S. EG2, 124 S.Ct. 2FBG, 1%G ).1d.2d F18 2004#, t-e
Su6reme Court settled an old <uestion b/ announcin$ t-at t-e A,S
confers @urisdiction but does not create a cause of action. ,-e Sosa
decision also made it clear t-at, in limited circumstances, aliens can loo5
to t-e Cla. of nationsD for a federal common la. cause of action. Id.

,-e A,S .as first enacted as 6art of t-e !udiciar/ Act of 1F8G. ,-e onl/
Cviolation&s( of t-e la. of nationsD 5no.n at t-at time .ere Cviolation of
safe conducts, infrin$ement of t-e ri$-ts of ambassadors, and
6irac/.D Id. at 2FE1. Ne. claims ma/ be reco$niKed under common la.
6rinci6les, but t-e/ must Crest on a norm of international c-aracter
acce6ted b/ t-e civiliKed .orld and defined .it- a s6ecificit/ com6arable
to t-e features of t-e 18t--centur/ 6aradi$ms .e -ave reco$niKed.D Id.
at 2FE1-E2. ,-e Court in Sosa discussed five factors counselin$ ver/
$reat caution on t-is front> 1# common la. &'14( @ud$es in t-e 6ast .ere
seen as Cdiscoverin$D la., but t-e/ are no. seen as ma5in$ or creatin$
la.? 2# since "rie v. #omp$ins, B04 U.S. E4, %8 S.Ct. 81F, 82 ).1d. 1188
1GB8#, t-e role of federal common la. -as been dramaticall/ reduced,
and courts -ave $enerall/ loo5ed for le$islative $uidance before ta5in$
innovative measures? B# creatin$ 6rivate ri$-ts of action is $enerall/ best
left to t-e le$islature? 4# decisions involvin$ international la. ma/ -ave
collateral conse<uences t-at im6in$e on t-e discretion of t-e le$islative
and eAecutive branc-es in mana$in$ forei$n affairs? and %# t-ere is no
mandate from Con$ress encoura$in$ @udicial creativit/ in t-is area, and
in fact t-ere are le$islative -ints in t-e o66osite direction. See id. at
2FE2-EB.

*laintiffs ma5e reference to numerous treaties and ot-er sources of
international la. t-at stron$l/ condemn torture. ,-ose aut-orities
$enerall/ address official state# torture, and t-e <uestion is .-et-er t-e
la. of nations a66lies to 6rivate actors li5e t-e defendants in t-e 6resent
case. ,-e Su6reme Court -as not ans.ered t-at <uestion, see id. at
2FEE n. 20, but in t-e D.C. Circuit t-e ans.er is no. In #el!%ren v.
&ibyan Arab 'epublic, F2E +.2d FF4 D.C.Cir.1G84#, cert. denied, 4F0
U.S. 100B, 10% S.Ct. 1B%4, 84 ).1d.2d BFF 1G8%#, victims of a 1GF8
terrorist attac5 in ;srael sued a number of 6arties, includin$ several
6rivate or$aniKations, for violations of t-e la. of nations under t-e A,S.
A t-ree-@ud$e 6anel unanimousl/ dismissed t-e case .it- t-ree se6arate
o6inions. !ud$e 1d.ards $ave t-e A,S t-e broadest reac-, &+N1(
$enerall/ a$reein$ .it- t-e Second Circuit s landmar5 decision in
(ilartiga v. )ena!Irala, EB0 +.2d 8FE 2nd Cir.1G80#, t-at acts of official
torture violate t-e la. of nations. See #el!%ren, F2E +.2d at F8E-8F, FG1.
Lo.ever, !ud$e 1d.ards found no consensus t-at 6rivate actors are
bound b/ t-e la. of nations. Id. at FG1-G%. &+N2( ,-e Court of A66eals
addressed t-e issue a$ain onl/ a /ear later in Sanche!"spinoa v.
'eagan, FF0 +.2d 202 D.C.Cir.1G8%#, a case involvin$ alle$ations of
CeAecution, murder, abduction, torture, ra6e, &and( .oundin$D b/ t-e
Nicara$uan Contras, id. at 20%, statin$ <uite clearl/ t-at t-e la. of
nations Cdoes not reac- 6rivate, non-state conduct of t-is sort for t-e
reasons stated b/ !ud$e 1d.ards in #el!%ren v. &ibyan Arab 'epublic,
F2E +.2d at FG1-GE 1d.ards, !. concurrin$#? see also id. at 80F 4or5, !.
concurrin$#.D id. at 20E-20F. &+NB(

+N1. !ud$e 4or5 essentiall/ found t-at t-e A,S did not 6rovide a
6rivate ri$-t of action on its o.n, t-at t-e common la. allo.ed for
at most t-e t-ree t/6es of la. of nations claims reco$niKed in
1F8G, and t-at virtuall/ no international -uman ri$-ts la. 6rovided
a 6rivate cause of action in munici6al courts. #el!%ren, F2E +.2d
at FGG-82B. !ud$e "obb found t-e entire matter non-@usticiable
under t-e 6olitical <uestion doctrine. id. at 82B-2F.

+N2. !ud$e 1d.ards considered t-e -istoric claim of 6irac/ to be
one of a limited number of eAce6tions to t-is 6rinci6le, but -e
.ould not add torture. #el!%ren, F2E +.2d at FG4-G%.

+NB. ;n #el!%ren, !ud$e 1d.ards noted t-at torture b/ 6rivate
6arties actin$ under Ccolor of la.,D as com6ared to torture b/
6rivate 6arties Cactin$ se6arate from an/ states aut-orit/ or
direction,D .ould be actionable under t-e A,S. F2E +.2d at FGB.
+or rat-er obvious reasons, -o.ever, t-ese 6laintiffs disavo. an/
assertion t-at t-e defendants .ere state actors, *ls.: 966:n to
Def. CAC; 0ot. Dismiss at 1%-1E> if defendants .ere actin$ as
a$ents of t-e state, t-e/ .ould -ave soverei$n immunit/ under
Sanc-eK-1s6inoKa. As t-en-!ud$e Scalia noted in dicta, 6laintiffs
cannot alle$e t-at conduct is state action for @urisdictional
6ur6oses but 6rivate action for soverei$n immunit/ 6ur6oses.
See Sanche!"spinoa, FF0 +.2d at 20F. *laintiff Ladod asserted
t-at defendants .ere actin$ Cunder t-e color of state aut-orit/,D
*l. Ladod s *ro6osed Su66lemental 0em. ). at F-8, but
subse<uentl/ .it-dre. -is filin$. ,-is .it-dra.al eliminates t-e
need to determine .-et-er t-ere is an/ tension bet.een t-e state
actor in<uir/ under t-e A,S and a similar in<uir/ under
6reem6tion involvin$ an affirmative $overnment contractor
defense but not immunit/. See in*ra.

&'1%( *laintiffs alle$ations describe conduct t-at is ab-orrent to civiliKed
6eo6le, and surel/ actionable under a number of common la. t-eories.
After #el!%ren or Sanche!"spinoa, -o.ever, it is not actionable under
t-e Alien ,ort Statute s $rant of @urisdiction, as a violation of t-e la. of
nations.

Political uestion Doctrine

Defendants assertion t-at 6laintiffs claims are non-@usticiable because
t-e/ im6licate 6olitical <uestions is re@ected. C,-e non@usticiabilit/ of a
6olitical <uestion is 6rimaril/ a function of t-e se6aration of
6o.ers.D Ba$er v. Carr, BEG U.S. 18E, 210, 82 S.Ct. EG1, F ).1d.2d EEB
1GE2#. ,-e 6olitical <uestion doctrine ma/ lac5 clarit/, see, e.$., Comm.
o* United States Citiens &iving in +icaragua v. 'eagan, 8%G +.2d G2G,
GBB D.C.Cir.1G88#, but it is not .it-out standards. At least one of
follo.in$ must be CineAtricable from t-e case at barD to im6licate t-e
doctrine>

&1( a teAtuall/ demonstrable constitutional commitment of t-e
issue to a coordinate 6olitical de6artment? or &2( a lac5 of @udiciall/
discoverable and mana$eable standards for resolvin$ it? or &B( t-e
im6ossibilit/ of decidin$ .it-out an initial 6olic/ determination of a
5ind clearl/ for non@udicial discretion? or &4( t-e im6ossibilit/ of a
court s underta5in$ inde6endent resolution .it-out eA6ressin$
lac5 of t-e res6ect due coordinate branc-es of $overnment? or &%(
an unusual need for un<uestionin$ ad-erence to a 6olitical
decision alread/ made? or &E( t-e 6otentialit/ of embarrassment
from multifarious 6ronouncements b/ various de6artments on one
<uestion.

Ba$er, BEG U.S. at 21F, 82 S.Ct. EG1? see also ,ieth v. -ubelirer, %41
U.S. 2EF, 2FF-F8, 124 S.Ct. 1FEG, 1%8 ).1d.2d %4E 2004# citin$ t-e siA
4a5er tests and notin$ t-at Ct-ese tests are 6robabl/ listed in
descendin$ order of bot- im6ortance and certaint/D#. 1ac- case re<uires
Ca discriminatin$ anal/sis of t-e 6articular <uestion 6osed, in terms of
t-e -istor/ of its mana$ement b/ t-e 6olitical branc-es, of its
susce6tibilit/ to @udicial -andlin$ in t-e li$-t of its nature and 6osture in
t-e s6ecific case, and of t-e 6ossible conse<uences of @udicial
action.D Ba$er, BEG U.S. at 211-12, 82 S.Ct. EG1.

,-e Constitution s allocation of .ar 6o.ers to t-e *resident and
Con$ress does not eAclude t-e courts from ever/ dis6ute t-at can
ar$uabl/ be connected to Ccombat,D as t-e Su6reme Court s re@ection of
t-e $overnment s se6aration of 6o.ers ar$ument in .amdi v.
'ums*eld, %42 U.S. %0F, 124 S.Ct. 2EBB, 2E4%-%1, 1%G ).1d.2d %F8
2004#, ma5es clear. As t-e Nint- Circuit observed, in an action b/ -eirs
of 6assen$ers of an ;ranian civilian aircraft s-ot do.n b/ t-e U.S. militar/
durin$ t-e ;ran-;ra< .ar, Ct-e fact t-at an action is Hta5en in t-e ordinar/
eAercise of discretion in t-e conduct of .ar: does not 6ut it be/ond t-e
@udicial 6o.er.D Koohi v. United States, GFE +.2d 1B28, 1BB2 Gt-
Cir.1GG2# <uotin$ and citin$ #he )a/uete .abana, 1F% U.S. EFF, 20
S.Ct. 2G0, 44 ).1d. B20 1G00#, and citin$ ot-er cases#, cert. denied, %08
U.S. GE0, 11B S.Ct. 2G28, 124 ).1d.2d EFG 1GGB#. An action for
dama$es arisin$ from t-e acts of 6rivate contractors and not see5in$
in@unctive relief does not involve t-e courts in Coverseein$ t-e conduct of
forei$n 6olic/ or t-e use and dis6osition of militar/ 6o.er.D &u*tig v.
Mc+amara, BFB +.2d EE4, EEE D.C.Cir.1GEF#.

&'1E( 9f course t-is case -as some relations-i6 to forei$n relations, but
Cit is error to su66ose t-at ever/ case or controvers/ .-ic- touc-es
forei$n relations lies be/ond @udicial co$niKance.D Ba$er, BEG U.S. at
211, 82 S.Ct. EG1? see also -apan 0haling Ass1n v. Am. Cetacean
Soc1y, 4F8 U.S. 221, 2B0-B1, 10E S.Ct. 28E0, G2 ).1d.2d 1EE 1G8E#
allo.in$ la.suit to force Secretar/ of Commerce to declare !a6an in
violation of international .-alin$ a$reement#? Comm. o* United States
Citiens &iving in +icaragua, 8%G +.2d G2G D.C.Cir.1G88# findin$
Ctroublin$D t-e district court refusal to ad@udicate claim of infrin$ement of
6ersonal and 6ro6ert/ ri$-ts of U.S. citiKens resultin$ from U.S. fundin$
of Nicara$uan Contras#. Nor does defendants effort to frame t-is case
as a standard matter of C.ar re6arationsD successfull/ invo5e t-e 6olitical
<uestion doctrine. Lere, unli5e in man/ ot-er re6arations cases
entan$led .it- 6olitical <uestions, t-ere is no state-ne$otiated
re6arations a$reement com6etin$ for le$itimac/ .it- t-is court s rulin$s.
See, e.$., Am. Ins. Ass1n v. Garamendi, %BG U.S. BGE, 41B, 12B S.Ct.
2BF4, 1%E ).1d.2d BFE 200B# California la. on Lolocaust era claims
conflictin$ .it- eAecutive a$reements bet.een U.S. and +rance, Austria,
and 3erman/#? .wang Geum -oo v. -apan, 41B +.Bd 4% D.C.Cir.200%#
former 8orld 8ar ;; Ccomfort .omenD suin$ !a6an des6ite 6rior
di6lomatic settlement of claims a$ainst !a6an#. ,-e facts of t-is case are
<uite distinct from t-ose found to im6licate t-e 6olitical <uestion doctrine
in Schneider v. Kissinger, 412 +.Bd 1G0 D.C.Cir.200%#. ,-ere, in a
matter intert.ined .it- Cold 8ar decision-ma5in$, a former National
Securit/ Advisor and t-e United States itself .ere sued for t-e alle$ed
murder and torture of a C-ilean $eneral in 1GF0. See id. ,-e Court of
A66eals found t-at t-e case c-allen$ed forei$n 6olic/ decisions over
.-ic- t-e courts -ave no aut-orit/. id. Lere 6laintiffs sue 6rivate 6arties
for actions of a t/6e t-at bot- violate clear United States 6olic/, see +irst
Am. Com6l. at MM 24-28, and -ave led to recent -i$- 6rofile court martial
6roceedin$s a$ainst United States soldiers.

0ana$eabilit/ 6roblems ma/ .ell emer$e as t-e liti$ation in t-is case
6roceeds, es6eciall/ if discover/ collides .it- $overnment claims to state
secrec/. ,-e $overnment is not a 6art/, -o.ever, and ; am not 6re6ared
to dismiss ot-er.ise valid claims at t-is earl/ sta$e in antici6ation of
obstacles t-at ma/ or ma/ not arise.

Preem!tion

Defendants assert t-at 6laintiffs common la. claims are 6reem6ted
under an eAtension of t-e $overnment contractor defense laid outin
Boyle v. United #echs. Corp., 48F U.S. %00, 108 S.Ct. 2%10, 101
).1d.2d 442 1G88#, and eA6anded b/ Ioo-i. *reem6tion in t-is sense
means t-at, even if 6laintiffs serious common la. alle$ations are true,
t-ere ma/ be no remed/ for t-em, &+N4( and 6laintiffs common la.
&'1F( claims ma/ indeed ultimatel/ be barred. ,-e $overnment
contractor defense is an affirmative defense, -o.ever, and defendants
-ave not 6roduced sufficient factual su66ort to @ustif/ its a66lication.

+N4. Defendants 6oint to t-ree alternative met-ods b/ .-ic-
6laintiffs mi$-t see5 redress alt-ou$- not from defendants
t-emselves#> t-e 0ilitar/ Claims Act 6rovidin$ com6ensation for
claims a$ainst t-e militar/#, 10 U.S.C. J 2FBB? t-e +orei$n Claims
Act sameNbut s6ecificall/ for dama$e in forei$n countries#, 10
U.S.C. J 2FB4? and a ver/ $eneral 6led$e b/ t-e Secretar/ of
Defense to com6ensate detainees mistreated at Abu 3-raib. Def.
,itan 0ot. Dismiss at 22-2B. ,-e first t.o on t-eir face are limited
to Cnoncombat activities,D .-ic- .ould ma5e t-em ina66licable
-ere if, as defendants ar$ue else.-ere, t-e activities in <uestion
-ere .ere Ccombat activities.D At oral ar$ument, 6laintiffs insisted
t-at t-is court is t-e onl/ forum in .-ic- com6ensation is
available to t-em. 4=21=0% ,r. at 41. Alt-ou$- t-e State
De6artment -as also stated t-at relief ma/ be available as
defendants describe, see U.S. De6artment of State, Second
*eriodic "e6ort of t-e United States of America to t-e Committee
A$ainst ,orture, AnneA 1N*art ,.o 0a/ E,
200%#, -tt6>==....state.$ov=$=drl=rls=4%FB8.-tm - 6artOt.o, t-e
record does not establis- t-at an/ of t-ese routes is actuall/
viable, and m/ .or5in$ assum6tion is t-at it is eit-er t-is court or
not-in$ for 6laintiffs.

;n Boyle, t-e estate of a 0arine -elico6ter 6ilot sued a -elico6ter
manufacturer for .ron$ful deat- caused b/ alle$ed 6roduct
defects.Boyle, 48F U.S. at %02-0B, 108 S.Ct. 2%10. ,-e Su6reme Court
found 4o/le s claims 6reem6ted as a matter of @ud$e-made federal
common la.. id. at %04-1B, 108 S.Ct. 2%10. ,-e Court first determined
t-at Cuni<uel/ federal interestsD .ere at sta5eNt-e ri$-ts and obli$ations
of t-e United States under its contracts, civil liabilit/ for actions ta5en b/
federal officials in t-e course of t-eir dut/, and federal 6rocurement of
e<ui6ment. id. at %04-0F, 108 S.Ct. 2%10. ,-en, t-e Court concluded
t-at t-e a66lication of state la. liabilit/ t-eor/ 6resented a Csi$nificant
conflictD .it- federal 6olicies or interests, id. at %0F-%1B, 108 S.Ct. 2%10,
findin$ $uidance in t-e Cdiscretionar/ functionD eAce6tion to t-e +ederal
,ort Claims Act +,CA#. id. at %11-1B, 108 S.Ct. 2%10. ,-e Court
reasoned t-at if t-e -elico6ter s desi$n .as a result of $overnment
6olic/ decisions, even ones t-at made trade-offs bet.een safet/ and
combat effectiveness, liabilit/ s-ould not be 6ermitted. id. ,o ensure t-at
t-e desi$n .as a 6roduct of $overnment discretionar/ decision-ma5in$,
t-e Court remanded for a determination as to .-et-er> C1# t-e United
States a66roved reasonabl/ 6recise s6ecifications? 2# t-e e<ui6ment
conformed to t-ose s6ecifications? and B# t-e su66lier .arned t-e
United States about t-e dan$ers in t-e use of t-e e<ui6ment t-at .ere
5no.n to t-e su66lier but not to t-e United States.D id. at %12, 108 S.Ct.
2%10.

Koohi eAtended Boyle to a case involvin$ combatant activities. ,-e
+,CA bars suits a$ainst t-e federal $overnment for Can/ claim arisin$
out of t-e combatant activities of t-e militar/ or naval forces, or t-e
Coast 3uard, durin$ time of .ar.D 28 U.S.C. J 2E80@#. ;n Koohi2t-e court
loo5ed to t-is combatant activities eAce6tion to t-e +,CA and found t-at
one 6ur6ose of t-e eAce6tion Cis to reco$niKe t-at durin$ .artime
encounters no dut/ of reasonable care is o.ed to t-ose a$ainst .-om
force is directed as a result of aut-oriKed militar/ action.D Koohi2 GFE
+.2d at 1BBF. ,-us, $uided b/ 4o/le s reliance on t-e +,CA, t-e court
found t-at im6osin$ liabilit/ on t-e civilian ma5ers of a .ea6ons s/stem
used in an accidental s-ootin$ do.n of a civilian aircraft C.ould create a
dut/ of care .-ere t-e combatant activities eAce6tion is intended to
ensure t-at none eAists.D id.? see also Bentlin v. .ughes Aircra*t Co.,
8BB +.Su66. 148E C.D.Cal.1GGB#.

Defendants .ant me to eA6and Boyle s 6reem6tion anal/sis be/ond
Ioo-i s ne$li$ence=6roduct liabilit/ conteAt to automaticall/ 6reem6t an/
claims, includin$ t-ese intentional tort claims, a$ainst contractors
6erformin$ .or5 t-e/ consider to be combatant activities. ,-is .ould be
t-e first time t-at Boyle -as ever been a66lied in t-is manner. 4o/le
eA6licitl/ declined to address t-e <uestion of eAtendin$ federal immunit/
to non-$overnment em6lo/ees, Boyle, 48F U.S. at %0% n. 1, 108 S.Ct.
2%10, and ; .ill not eAtend t-at immunit/ -ere. &+N%( "at-er, 6reem6tion
under &'18( t-e $overnment contractor defense is an affirmative
defense, .it- t-e burden of 6roof on t-e defendants. See id. at %1B-14,
108 S.Ct. 2%10? 3ensberger v. United #echs. Corp., 2GF +.Bd EE, F%
2nd Cir.2002#, cert. denied, %BF U.S. 114F, 12B S.Ct. 8FE, 1%4 ).1d.2d
84G 200B#? Snell v. Bell .elicopter #e4tron2 Inc., 10F +.Bd F44, F4E Gt-
Cir.1GGF#.

+N%. ;mmunit/ involves not an affirmative defense t-at ma/
ultimatel/ be 6ut to t-e @ur/, but a decision b/ t-e court at an earl/
sta$e t-at t-e defendant is entitled to freedom from suit in t-e first
6lace. See Mitchell v. (orsyth, 4F2 U.S. %11, %2B-2F, 10% S.Ct.
280E, 8E ).1d.2d 411 1G8%#.

Under t-e first ste6 of 4o/le s anal/sis, ; must a$ree t-at t-e treatment
of 6risoners durin$ .artime im6licates Cuni<uel/ federal interests.D +or
t-e second ste6, follo.in$ 4o/le and Ioo-i, ; .ill loo5 to t-e +,CA for
$uidance on t-e <uestion of .-et-er a suit -ere .ould 6roduce a
Csi$nificant conflictD .it- federal 6olicies or interests. ;n Boyle, t-e Court
sou$-t to develo6 a common la. rule t-at .ould 6revent Cstate tort suits
a$ainst contractors &t-at( .ould 6roduce t-e same effect sou$-t to be
avoided b/ t-e +,CA eAem6tion.D 48F U.S. at %11, 108 S.Ct. 2%10.
1s6eciall/ because t-e $overnment .ill eventuall/ end u6 6a/in$ for
increased liabilit/ t-rou$- -i$-er contractin$ 6rices or t-rou$- an
inabilit/ to find contractors .illin$ to ta5e on certain tas5s#,
t-e Boyle court noted, C;t ma5es little sense to insulate t-e 3overnment
a$ainst financial liabilit/ for t-e @ud$ment t-at a 6articular feature of
militar/ e<ui6ment is necessar/ .-en t-e 3overnment 6roduces t-e
e<ui6ment itself, but not .-en it contracts for t-e 6roduction.D id. at %12,
108 S.Ct. 2%10. ,-e in<uir/ t-en turns to .-et-er allo.in$ a suit to $o
for.ard .ould conflict .it- t-e 6ur6oses of t-e +,CA and .-et-er
defendants -ave s-o.n t-at t-e/ .ere essentiall/ soldiers in all but
name.

,-e le$islative -istor/ for t-e +,CA s combatant activities eAce6tion
&+NE( is Csin$ularl/ barren,D -ohnson v. United States, 1F0 +.2d FEF, FEG
Gt- Cir.1G48#, and t-ere is little case la. for $uidance. ,-e eAce6tion
seems to re6resent Con$ressional ac5no.led$ment t-at .ar is an
in-erentl/ u$l/ business for .-ic- tort claims are sim6l/ ina66ro6riate.
As t-e Su6reme Court -as eA6lained in a different conteAt, C;t .ould be
difficult to devise more effective fetterin$ of a field commander t-an to
allo. t-e ver/ enemies -e is ordered to reduce to submission to call -im
to account in -is o.n civil courts and divert -is efforts and attention from
t-e militar/ offensive abroad to t-e le$al defensive at -ome.D -ohnson v.
"isentrager, BBG U.S. FEB, FF8, F0 S.Ct. GBE, G4 ).1d. 12%% 1G%0#.
State la. re$ulation of combat activit/ .ould 6resent a Csi$nificant
conflictD &'1G( .it- t-is federal interest in unfettered militar/ action. ,-is
is true even .it- re$ard to intentional torts, because eAce6tions to +,CA
re6resent C3overnmental activities .-ic- b/ t-eir ver/ nature s-ould be
free from t-e -indrance of a 6ossible dama$e suit.D -ohnson v. United
States, 1F0 +.2d at FEG? see also Koohi, GFE +.2d at 1BB% +,CA
combatant activities eAce6tion a66lies even to acts t-at are Cdeliberate
rat-er t-an t-e result of errorD#. ,-us, .e are brou$-t a$ain t-e <uestion
of .-et-er defendants em6lo/ees .ere essentiall/ actin$ as soldiers.

+NE. ,-ree ot-er eAce6tions to t-e +,CA mi$-t t-eoreticall/
a66l/ -ere. Defendants ar$ue t-at t-e discretionar/ function
eAce6tion, 28 U.S.C. J 2E80a#, s-ould a66l/. Lo.ever, as
discussed supra, Boyle establis-ed a clear t-ree-6art test, .-ic-
defendants do not meet. ,-e rationale be-ind t-e forei$n countr/
eAce6tion, 28 U.S.C. J 2E805#, a66ears to be Con$ressional
Cun.illin$&ness( to sub@ect t-e United States to liabilities
de6endin$ u6on t-e la.s of a forei$n 6o.er.D United States v.
Spelar,BB8 U.S. 21F, 221, F0 S.Ct. 10, G4 ).1d. B 1G4G#? Smith
v. United States, %0F U.S. 1GF, 210, 11B S.Ct. 11F8, 122 ).1d.2d
%48 1GGB#. ,-is concern -as not been substantiall/ discussed b/
eit-er 6art/, 6resents a number of ver/ com6leA issues, and is not
a66ro6riatel/ addressed .it-out furt-er briefin$. ,-e eAce6tion for
Cassault, batter/, false im6risonment, false arrest,D 28 U.S.C.
J 2E80-#, and several ot-er ina66licable intentional torts mi$-t
also a66l/ -ere. Lo.ever, t-e le$islative -istor/ for t-is eAce6tion
-as in t-e 6ast been called Cs6arse,D United States v.
Shearer, 4FB U.S. %2, %%, 10% S.Ct. B0BG, 8F ).1d.2d B8 1G8%#,
and Cmea$re25 )anella v. United States, 21E +.2d E22, E2% 2nd
Cir.1G%4# Larlan, !.#, t-e case la. in t-is area is e<uall/ lac5in$,
and neit-er 6art/ -as mentioned t-is eAce6tion in briefs.

Defendants .ere em6lo/ed b/ t-e U.S. militar/ as interro$ators CAC;#
and inter6reters ,itan# in a 6rison in ;ra< .-ere ca6tured 6ersons .ere
detained. Defendants assert t-at t-eir em6lo/ees .ere essentiall/ on
CloanD to t-e militar/, 4=21=0% ,r. at E, t-at t-ese em6lo/ees .ere
Cessentiall/ P inte$rated into t-e militar/ -ierarc-/,D id. at 2G, and t-at
t-e Cmilitar/ s o6erational control over &t-ese em6lo/ees .as( total.D Def.
,itan 0ot. Dismiss at E. A CStatement of 8or5D 6rovided b/ ,itan is
consistent .it- t-e notion t-at ,itan s em6lo/ees .ere soldiers in all but
name, alt-ou$- it also contains some lan$ua$e su$$estin$ a contrar/
conclusion. &+NF( CAC; -as not 6rovided a statement of .or5.# 9t-er
t-an ,itan s Statement of 8or5, defendants -ave 6roduced not-in$
be/ond limited assertions to meet t-eir factual burden of s-o.in$ t-at
t-e/ are entitled to t-e $overnment contractor defense. 0ore information
is needed on .-at eAactl/ defendants em6lo/ees .ere doin$ in ;ra<.
8-at .ere t-eir contractual res6onsibilitiesQ ,o .-om did t-e/ re6ortQ
Lo. .ere t-e/ su6ervisedQ 8-at .ere t-e structures of command and
controlQ ;f t-e/ .ere indeed soldiers in all but name, t-e $overnment
contractor defense .ill succeed, but t-e burden is on defendants to
s-o. t-at t-e/ are entitled to 6reem6tion.

+NF. +or eAam6le, .-ile contractors Cmust ad-ere to t-e
standards of conduct establis-ed b/ t-e o6erational or unit
commander,D ,itan Statement of 8or5 at J C-1.8.4, t-e/ also
Cs-all not .ear an/ identification bad$e or ta$s t-at identifies
t-em as an em6lo/ee of t-e United States 3overnment.D id. at
J C-1.G.2.

+ull discover/ is not a66ro6riate at t-is sta$e, es6eciall/ $iven t-e
6otential for time-consumin$ dis6utes involvin$ state secrets. Since
limited additional facts are needed, a motion for summar/ @ud$ment is
t-e ri$-t ve-icle to address t-e issue of 6reem6tion. ; .ill entertain suc-
a motion from defendants, com6lete .it- .-atever su66ortin$ material
t-e/ believe sufficient. ;f a66ro6riate, 6laintiffs .ill t-en of course be
entitled to file a "ule %Ef# affidavit, and .e .ill address an/ discover/ at
t-at 6oint. &+N8(

+N8. ; note t-at Al 'awi v. #itan Corporation 0%-cv-11E%# -as
@ust been transferred to t-is Court and deals .it- substantiall/ t-e
same issues as t-e 6resent case. ; .ill be settin$ a status
conference for all 6arties in bot- t-at case and t-is case, at .-ic-
time ; .ill set a briefin$ sc-edule for motions in bot- cases.

R"CO Claim

*laintiffs claims under ";C9 could be dismissed for a number of
reasons, but it is sufficient to note -ere t-at 6laintiffs do not -ave
standin$. A 6laintiff see5in$ ";C9 standin$ must alle$e dama$e to
Cbusiness or 6ro6ert/.D 18 U.S.C. J 1GE4c#. Alle$ations of 6ersonal
in@uries alone are not sufficient. Burnett v. Al Bara$a Inv. 6 3ev.
Corp.2 2F4 +.Su66.2d 8E, 100-02 D.D.C.200B#. *laintiffs alle$e t-at U.S.
0ilitar/ forces seiKed R400 and a .ea6on from 6laintiff Ladod, +irst Am.
Com6l. at M 40, but 6laintiffs counsel concede t-at t-e/ can alle$e no
acts involvin$ defendants t-at $o be/ond 6ersonal in@ur/. &'20( *ls.:
966:n to Def. ,itan s 0ot. Dismiss at 2F-28.

#o$ernment Contracting La% Claim

*laintiffs claims under various la.s re$ulatin$ U.S. $overnment
contracts must be dismissed. +irst, 6laintiffs do not attem6t to c-allen$e
defendants assertion t-at t-ese la.s 6rovide no 6rivate ri$-t of action.
Second, insofar as 6laintiffs attem6t in t-eir o66osition to some-o.
rest/le t-is 6ortion of t-eir com6laint as 6resentin$ a Cclaim for e<uitable
reliefD t-rou$- ";C9, see, e.$., *ls.: 966:n to Def. ,itan s 0ot. Dismiss
at B1-BB, ; need onl/ note t-at ; am dismissin$ 6laintiffs ";C9 claims.
+inall/, 6laintiffs -ave failed to @oin an indis6ensable 6art/ t-e United
States# in t-is claim. See +ed.".Civ.*. 12b#F#, 1G.

&alse "m!risonment and Con$ersion Claims

Alt-ou$- most of 6laintiffs common la. claims ma/ 6roceed as
6rovided above, t-e false im6risonment and conversion claims .ill be
dismissed. As discussed above, t-e onl/ factual alle$ation t-at could
conceivabl/ su66ort conversion involves t-e U.S. militar/ and not
defendants. As to false im6risonment, 6laintiffs initiall/ assert in t-eir
com6laint t-at t-e/ .ere Cforcibl/ detained under United States custod/
in ;ra<,D +irst Am. Com6l. at M 1, and t-at t-e/ .ere Cdetained,
interro$ated, and 6-/sicall/ abused b/ t-e Defendants and=or ot-ers
.-ile under t-e custod/ and control of t-e Defendants,D e.$., id. at M B2.
,-ose 6laintiffs 6rovidin$ information on t-eir arrests, -o.ever, all
indicate t-at t-e/ .ere arrested b/ U.S. or ;ra<i aut-orities, not
defendants. See +irst Am. Com6l. at M B1, BE, 40, 4G, %4. *laintiffs -ave
not res6onded to CAC; s observation t-at t-e com6laint a66ears to
im6licate onl/ t-e United States, and not defendants, in t-eir detention,
Def. CAC; 0ot. Dismiss at 44-4%, eAce6t to sa/ t-at t-e/ Cintend to
amend t-e Amended Com6laint .-en additional facts are discovered
.it- re$ard to t-eir claim& ( for P false im6risonment.D *ls.: 966:n to Def.
CAC; s 0ot. Dismiss at B2 n. 10. ;f, and .-en, 6laintiffs -ave a @ustifiable
basis on .-ic- to im6licate t-ese defendants in t-eir false im6risonment
and conversion claims, t-e/ ma/ see5 leave to amend t-eir com6laint.

Di$ersity and Minimum Amount

!urisdiction for 6laintiffs common la. claims is based on 28 U.S.C.
J 1BB2. ,-at statute does not confer @urisdiction over suits b/ a $rou6
consistin$ of onl/ forei$n 6ersons a$ainst anot-er forei$n 6erson. 28
U.S.C. J 1BB2a#. As 6laintiffs are aliens, t-eir claims a$ainst defendant
CAC; N.S., .-ic- is incor6orated in t-e Net-erlands, must be dismissed.
See -)Morgan Chase Ban$ v. #ra**ic Stream 7B,I8 In*rastructure
&td., %BE U.S. 88, G1, 122 S.Ct. 20%4, 1%B ).1d.2d G% 2002# entities
incor6orated in forei$n countries are forei$n citiKens for 6ur6oses of
diversit/ anal/sis#. &+NG( As to 6laintiffs failure to alle$e at least RF%,000
in dama$es, 28 U.S.C. J 1BB2a#, ; find t-at it is in t-e interest of @ustice
to allo. an amendment.

+NG. At oral ar$ument, counsel for CAC; stated t-at CAC; N.S.
.as not involved in t-e interro$ator contracts in <uestion -ere.
4=21=0% ,r. at 2E. +urt-er, counsel indicated t-at a CAC; com6an/
not named in t-e suit 6rovided interro$ators to t-e militar/.id.

' ' ' ' ' '

An a66ro6riate order accom6anies t-is memorandum.