Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co.

Last updated

Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Company
US-CourtOfAppeals-11thCircuit-Seal.png
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Full case nameSinaltrainal, Isidro Segundo Gil, The Estate of, Luis Eduardo Garcia, Alvaro Gonzalez Lopez, Jose Domingo Flores, Jorge Humberto Leal, Juan Carlos Galvis, Alvaro Gonzalez, John Doe, as representative of the Estate of Isidro Segundo Gil, Luis Adolfo Cardona, John Doe II, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Coca-Cola Company, Coca-Cola De Colombia, S.A., Panamerican Beverages Company, LLC, Panamco, LLC, Panamco Industrail De Gaseosas, S.A., A.K.A. Panamco Columbia, S.A., Richard I. Kirby, et al.
DecidedAugust 11, 2009
Citation(s)578 F.3d 1252
Case history
Prior history256 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (S.D. Fla. 2003); 474 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (S.D. Fla. 2006)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Gerald Bard Tjoflat, Susan H. Black, Emmett Ripley Cox
Case opinions
MajorityBlack, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.   § 1350

Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola, 578 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2009), was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the dismissal of a case filed by Colombian trade union Sinaltrainal (National Union of Food Workers) against Coca-Cola in a Miami district court, demanding monetary compensation of $500 million under the Alien Tort Claims Act for the deaths of three workers in Colombia.

Contents

Lawsuit

In 2001 Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola was filed in the Florida Third District Court of Appeal, demanding a monetary compensation for $500 million for the deaths of three workers, members of the National Union for Food Industry Workers who worked in the Coca-Cola Bebidas y Alimentos plant in Carepa in northern Colombia. [1] The lawsuit was brought by the Colombian trade union Sinaltrainal (National Union of Food Workers) and alleged that Panamco, a Colombian Coca-Cola bottling company, assisted paramilitaries in murdering several union members. Even though the alleged human rights violation occurred in Colombia, the union attempted to use the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) to bring the case into a U.S. district court. The ATCA grants U.S. courts jurisdiction in any dispute where it is alleged that a tort has been committed in violation of the "law of nations" or a treaty of the United States. [2] The plaintiffs also alleged violations of the Torture Victims Protection Act (TVPA).

Appeal

On March 31, 2003, the US District Court dismissed charges against The Coca-Cola Company because the alleged wrongdoing either occurred in the United States but was too removed from the injury or occurred abroad and did not have a substantial origin within the United States. [3] [ better source needed ] Federal Judge Jose E. Martinez allowed the case to go forward against two Coca-Cola bottlers: Bebidas y Alimentos and Panamerican Beverages, but not against Coca-Cola itself. [4] [ better source needed ] On September 4, 2006, Judge Martinez dismissed the remaining claims against the two bottlers.

On August 11, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled in favor of Coca-Cola, affirming the District Court's ruling. [5] In dismissing the ATCA claims, the court cited a lack of evidence to link the actions of the paramilitaries to the Colombian government and Coca-Cola. [6] Additionally, the Eleventh Circuit converted the District Court's dismissal of the TVPA claims on jurisdictional grounds to a dismissal on the merits for failure to state a claim. [7]

"Killer Coke" Campaign

A few months after the case, on April 16, 2003 Sinaltrainal union members launched the website killercoke.org, which called for the boycott of Coca-Cola. [8] [ better source needed ]

Notes

  1. Forero, Juan (July 26, 2001). "Union Says Coca-Cola in Colombia Uses Thugs". New York Times. Archived from the original on November 9, 2005.
  2. 28 U.S.C.   § 1350.
  3. "Coca-Cola avoids lawsuit over labor leader's murder". Civil RICO Report. 19 (1). May 12, 2003.
  4. Cohan, Jeffrey (April 29, 2003). "Coke Targeted In Union Lawsuit Case Marks Unusual Effort To Aid Labor In Colombia". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. pp. A–1.
  5. Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578F.3d1252 ( 11th Cir. 2009).
  6. Sinaltrainal, 578 F.3d at 1265.
  7. Sinaltrainal, 578 F.3d at 1270.
  8. Foust, Dean; Geri Smith; Elizabeth Woyke (January 23, 2006). ""Killer Coke" Or Innocent Abroad? Controversy over anti-union violence in Colombia has colleges banning Coca-Cola". Business Week. 3968: 46.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Coca-Cola</span> Carbonated soft drink

Coca-Cola, or Coke, is a carbonated soft drink with a cola flavor manufactured by the Coca-Cola Company. In 2013, Coke products were sold in over 200 countries worldwide, with consumers drinking more than 1.8 billion company beverage servings each day. Coca-Cola ranked No. 87 in the 2018 Fortune 500 list of the largest United States corporations by total revenue. Based on Interbrand's "best global brand" study of 2020, Coca-Cola was the world's sixth most valuable brand.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alien Tort Statute</span> US legislation

The Alien Tort Statute, also called the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), is a section in the United States Code that gives federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits filed by foreign nationals for torts committed in violation of international law. It was first introduced by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and is one of the oldest federal laws still in effect in the U.S.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">The Coca-Cola Company</span> American multinational beverage corporation

The Coca-Cola Company is an American multinational corporation founded in 1892. It produces Coca-Cola. The drink industry company also manufactures, sells, and markets other non-alcoholic beverage concentrates and syrups, and alcoholic beverages. The company's stock is listed on the NYSE and is part of the DJIA and the S&P 500 and S&P 100 indexes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Coca-Cola FEMSA</span> Mexican multinational beverage company

Coca-Cola FEMSA, S.A.B. de C.V., known as Coca-Cola FEMSA or KOF, is a Mexican multinational beverage company headquartered in Mexico City, Mexico. It is a subsidiary of FEMSA which owns 47.8% of its stock, with 27.8% held by wholly owned subsidiaries of The Coca-Cola Company and the remaining 25% listed publicly on the Mexican Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange. It is the largest franchise Coca-Cola bottler in the world, the company has operations in Latin America, although its largest and most profitable market is in Mexico.

The National Union of Food Industry Workers is a Colombian food industry trade union.

Forum non conveniens (FNC) is a mostly common law legal doctrine through which a court acknowledges that another forum or court where the case might have been brought is a more appropriate venue for a legal case, and transfers the case to such a forum. A change of venue might be ordered, for example, to transfer a case to a jurisdiction within which an accident or incident underlying the litigation occurred and where all the witnesses reside.

<i>Alperin v. Vatican Bank</i> Class action lawsuit filed in 1997 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Alperin v. Vatican Bank was an unsuccessful class action suit by Holocaust survivors brought against the Vatican Bank and the Franciscan Order filed in San Francisco, California, on November 15, 1999. The case was initially dismissed as a political question by the District Court for the Northern District of California in 2003, but was reinstated in part by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 2005. That ruling attracted attention as a precedent at the intersection of the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).

Energy Brands, also doing business as Glacéau, is a privately owned subsidiary of The Coca-Cola Company based in Whitestone, Queens, New York, that manufactures and distributes various lines of drinks marketed as enhanced water. Founded in May 1996 by J. Darius Bikoff with an electrolyte enhanced line of water called Smartwater, Energy Brands initially distributed its products to health food stores and independent retailers in the New York area. Adding Fruitwater and Vitaminwater to its line in 1998 and 2000, respectively, the company expanded to nationwide distribution in the early 2000s.

Since its invention by John Stith Pemberton in 1886, criticisms of Coca-Cola as a product, and of the business practices of The Coca-Cola Company, have been significant. The Coca-Cola Company is the largest soft drink company in the world, distributing over 500 different products. Since the early 2000s, the criticism of the use of Coca-Cola products, as well as the company itself, escalated, with criticism leveled at the company over health effects, environmental issues, animal testing, economic business practices and employee issues. The Coca-Cola Company has been faced with multiple lawsuits concerning the various criticisms.

<i>Wilson v. Libby</i>

Wilson v. Libby, 498 F. Supp. 2d 74, affirmed, 535 F.3d 697, was a civil lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on 13 July, 2006, by Valerie Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, IV, against Richard Armitage (individually) for allegedly revealing her identity and thus irresponsibly infringing upon her Constitutional rights and against Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney, Lewis Libby, Karl Rove, and the unnamed others (together) because the latter, in addition, allegedly "illegally conspired to reveal her identity." The lawsuit was ultimately dismissed.

Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950), combined three pending federal cases for a hearing in certiorari in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to members of the armed forces sustained while on active duty and not on furlough and resulting from the negligence of others in the armed forces. The opinion is an extension of the English common-law concept of sovereign immunity.

The Kano trovafloxacin trial litigation arose out of a clinical trial conducted by the pharmaceutical company Pfizer in 1996 in Kano, Nigeria, during an epidemic of meningococcal meningitis. To test its new antibiotic, trovafloxacin (Trovan), Pfizer gave 100 children trovafloxacin, while another 100 received the gold-standard anti-meningitis treatment, ceftriaxone, a cephalosporin antibiotic. Pfizer gave the children a substantially reduced dose of the ceftriaxone relative to that described on the US FDA-approved prescribing information. The allegation is that this was done to skew the test in favor of its own drug. Pfizer claimed that the dose used was sufficient even though a clinical trial performed by Médecins Sans Frontières recommends a dose of 50–100 mg/kg.

<i>Arar v. Ashcroft</i> American legal case

Arar v. Ashcroft, 585 F.3d 559, was a lawsuit brought by Maher Arar against the United States and various U.S. officials pursuant to the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed Arar's complaint due to lack of personal jurisdiction and national security and foreign policy considerations. This ruling was ultimately upheld by a divided en banc panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

<i>Doe v. Unocal Corp.</i>

Doe v. Unocal, 395 F.3d 932, opinion vacated and rehearing en banc granted, 395 F.3d 978, was a lawsuit filed against Unocal for alleged human rights violations.

Ray Rogers is an American labor rights activist, labor union strategist and organizer as well as a major figure of prominence in the American labor and human rights movement. Rogers is credited with pioneering the strategy of the "corporate campaign," a tactic that has been used with success by labor unions, human rights advocates and environmental activist groups in their battles against corporations in the United States and all over the world.

John Doe VII v. Exxon Mobil Corp (09–7125) is a lawsuit filed in the United States by 11 Indonesian villagers against ExxonMobil Corporation alleging that the company is responsible for human rights violations in the oil-rich province of Aceh, Indonesia. The case has broad implications for multinational corporations doing business in other countries. Indonesian security forces committed torture, rape, and murder against the plaintiffs and their families while under contract with ExxonMobil to guard the Arun gas field during the late 1990s and early 2000s; plaintiffs claim that Exxon is responsible for these atrocities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Spieth and Krug Brewery</span> United States historic place

The Spieth and Krug Brewery, also known as "Union Hall" and "Maxey Block", is a brewery established in 1867 in Bozeman, Montana, by two German immigrants, Jacob Spieth and Charles Krug. The current building was built in 1882. In 1895 the brewery was bought by Julius Lehrkind, whose descendants still operate beverage businesses in Bozeman.

<i>Saleh v. Bush</i>

Saleh v. Bush, 848 F.3d 880, was a class action lawsuit filed in 2013 against high-ranking members of the George W. Bush administration for their alleged involvement in premeditating and carrying out the Iraq War. In December 2014, the district court hearing the case ordered it dismissed with prejudice. The dismissal was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit.

<i>Arce v. GarcĂ­a</i>

Arce v. García, 434 F.3d 1254, is a landmark Eleventh Circuit case brought by three Salvadoran plaintiffs under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA). These claims were brought under the doctrine of command responsibility against two high-ranking Salvadoran military personnel who ordered and carried out grave human rights abuses over the course of the country’s twelve year civil war.

McKesson v. Doe, 592 U.S. 1 (2020), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that temporarily halted a lawsuit by a police officer against an activist associated with the Black Lives Matter movement and instructed the lower federal court to seek clarification of state law from the Louisiana Supreme Court. At issue was whether the activist, DeRay Mckesson, could be liable under Louisiana tort law for injuries caused by other people at a protest. Mckesson had argued that the First Amendment's protection of freedom of assembly should block the lawsuit entirely. The Court's decision to instead redirect the tort law issue to the Louisiana Supreme Court means that the constitutional question was delayed or avoided.