Abagninin v. AMVAC Chemical Corporation
Filed September 24, 2008
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal
Cite as 07-56326

Tortfeasor Denied Claims for Failing to Support Allegations

Akebo Abagninin was a West African foreign national who had lived and worked in different banana and pineapple plantations in Ivory Coast villages. During those times, Abagninin said they used DBCP as agricultural pesticide, which was designed and manufactured by AMVAC Chemical Corporation.

This case was based on a lawsuit filed by Abagninin and other workers (collectively, Agagninin) who sued AMVAC and various plantation owners (collectively, AMVAC) under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). According to Abagninin, many workers suffered sterility and other reproduction disorders following exposure to the pesticide.

Abagninin also contended that AMVAC’s conduct constituted genocide and crimes against humanity because the company “knew of DBCP’s harmful effects and acted pursuant to a state or organizational policy”.

The district court granted the motion with prejudice on the genocide allegations, ruling that Abagninin failed to allege that AMVAC acted with specific intent.

The claim for crimes against humanity was later dismissed for failure to allege that AMVAC’s conduct occurred within the context of a state or organizational policy.

Following this, Abagninin amended his complaint to allege crimes against humanity and racial discrimination under the ATS. Nevertheless, the district found that he failed to support allegations on a state or organizational policy regarding sterilization.

Abagninin sought discovery. After a hearing, the district court dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice, reasoning that the requested discovery would show no more than that the Ivory Coast government was aware of the use, and the consequences of using, DBCP, and concluding that would not establish conduct within the statutory definition of state action. Abagninin appealed.

The court of appeals affirmed, holding that Abagninin’s claims failed to allege specific intent.

The court noted that, in its entirety, the ATS provides: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”

Further, the Supreme Court has held that any claim based on the law of nations must “rest on a norm of international character accepted by the civilized world and defined with a specificity comparable to the features of the 18th-century paradigms” of piracy, infringement on the rights of ambassadors, and violation of safe conducts.

The court found the following facts in support of its ruling:

• That there was no treaty applicable to ATS, noting the U.S. has not signed or ratified the Rome Statute


• that the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as a specific intent crime. Further, decisions from international tribunals also reflect the specific intent requirement for genocide.


• The court also found that domestic materials, including U.S. statutes and appellate cases, rejected a definition of genocide based on mere knowledge.

Thus, Abagninin failed to state an ATS claim for genocide because he failed to allege facts showing violation based on a standard of a “universally-acknowledged” norm.

Regarding claims of crimes against humanity, the court found that he failed to allege facts sufficient to support his amended complaint.

Further, the district court then permitted supplemental briefing and argument as to whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice.

The Ninth Circuit court of appeals therefore affirmed a district court judgment, holding that a claim for relief under the Alien Tort Statute must “allege specific intent on the part of the alleged tortfeasor”, rather than simply knowledge of consequences.