UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION MILENA JOVIC, ZIVKA MIJIC, MIRA GRUBOR, BOSKO BJEGOVIC and DALIBOR MRKALJ, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. L-3 SERVICES, INC.; and ENGILITY HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants. Civ. Action No. 10-cv-5197 Hon. John Z. Lee, U.S.D.J. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS James E. Tyrrell, Jr. Joseph E. Hopkins Lisa Ann T. Ruggiero PATTON BOGGS LLP One Riverfront Plaza, 6th Floor Newark, New Jersey 07102 Tel: (973) 848-5600 Fax: (973) 848-5601 Attorneys for Defendants Engility Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Services, Inc. Paul T. Fox Thomas E. Dutton C. Allen Foster (pro hac vice pending) David S. Panzer (pro hac vice pending) GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 77 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 3100 Chicago, Illinois 60601 (312) 456-8400 Attorneys for Defendants Engility Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Services, Inc. Case: 1:10-cv-05197 Document #: 83 Filed: 07/01/13 Page 1 of 40 PageID #:707
MPRI has moved to dismiss a claim filed in Chicago by "Krajina" Serbs alleging that Croatia's 1995 Operation Storm amounted to genocide.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
MILENA JOVIC, ZIVKA MIJIC, MIRA GRUBOR, BOSKO BJEGOVIC and DALIBOR MRKALJ, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
L-3 SERVICES, INC.; and ENGILITY HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendants.
Civ. Action No. 10-cv-5197
Hon. John Z. Lee, U.S.D.J.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
James E. Tyrrell, Jr. Joseph E. Hopkins Lisa Ann T. Ruggiero PATTON BOGGS LLP One Riverfront Plaza, 6th Floor Newark, New Jersey 07102 Tel: (973) 848-5600 Fax: (973) 848-5601 Attorneys for Defendants Engility Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Services, Inc.
Paul T. Fox Thomas E. Dutton C. Allen Foster (pro hac vice pending) David S. Panzer (pro hac vice pending) GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 77 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 3100 Chicago, Illinois 60601 (312) 456-8400 Attorneys for Defendants Engility Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Services, Inc.
I. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE TIME-BARRED................................................................ 5
A. Even if a Ten-Year Limitation Period Applied And Were Subject to Tolling, Plaintiffs Do Not Plead Facts Sufficient to Invoke that Relief and Their Complaint Is Therefore Untimely. ................................................................ 6
B. The Ten-Year Limitation Period is Not Subject to Tolling. ................................... 9
1. The Ten-Year Period Began when Plaintiffs’ Claims Arose and, Therefore, Is Not Subject to Tolling. .......................................................... 9
2. The Ten-Year Period Is Jurisdictional and Therefore Not Subject to Tolling. .................................................................................................. 12
C. Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Time-Barred by the Governing State Statute of Limitations. ........................................................................................................... 12
II. THE COURT LACKS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION UNDER THE ATS, SECTION 1331, AND CAFA. ................................................................................ 14
A. The Complaint Should be Dismissed Because Plaintiffs Cannot Overcome the Presumption Against Extraterritoriality. ......................................................... 14
B. There is No Private Right of Action Under Section 1331 for Violations of International Law. ................................................................................................. 17
C. CAFA Does Not Provide Jurisdiction for Plaintiffs’ Claims. ............................... 18
III. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO PLEAD CLAIMS FOR WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED. ....................................................................................................... 19
A. There Is No Corporate Liability Under the ATS. ................................................. 19
B. Counts I, IV, V, VI, and VIII Should Be Dismissed Because Plaintiffs Do Not Allege that Defendants Acted With the Requisite Mens Rea. ....................... 19
C. Counts II, III, and VII Should Be Dismissed Because Plaintiffs Fail to Plead Essential Elements of Principal Liability. ................................................... 20
D. Plaintiffs’ State Law Conspiracy Claims in Counts IX and X are not Sustainable as a Matter of Law. ............................................................................ 23
1. Plaintiffs’ Claims for Conspiracy to Commit Forced Population Transfer and Destruction of Property Fail Under Both Illinois and Virginia Law. ............................................................................................ 23
2. Count X for Conspiracy to Commit Unlawful Conversion of Property Must Be Dismissed. ................................................................... 24
IV. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE BARRED BY THE ACT OF STATE DOCTRINE. ..................................................................................................................... 25
Abecassis v. Wyatt, 704 F.Supp.2d 623 (S.D. Tex. 2010) .......................................................................................20
Abelesz v. Magyar Nemzeti Bank, 692 F.3d 661 (7th 2012)...........................................................................................................21
Abramson v. P.J. Currier Lumber Co., No. 00-cv-315, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1039 (D.N.H. Jan. 17, 2001) ....................................11
Ahmed-Al-Khalifa, vs. Queen Elizabeth II, No. 13-cv-103, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71682 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 19, 2013) ..............................16
Allied Bank Int’l v. Banco Credito Agricola de Cartago, 757 F.2d 516 (2d Cir. 1985).....................................................................................................28
Andrews v. Metro N. Commuter R.R. Co., 882 F.2d 705 (2d Cir. 1989).....................................................................................................20
Arroyo v. United States, 656 F.3d 663 (7th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................12
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) .......................................................................................................5, 19, 20
Ayilla, v. The Salvation Army, No. 13-cv-289, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78173 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2013) ..............................16
Aziz v. Alcolac, Inc., 658 F.3d 388 (4th Cir. 2011) .............................................................................................19, 20
Bado-Santana v. Ford Motor Co., 283 F. Supp. 2d 520 (D.P.R. 2003) ............................................................................................8
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) .................................................................................................................28
Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964) ...........................................................................................................26, 29
Bay Tobacco, LLC v. Bell Quality Tobacco Prods., LLC, 261 F. Supp. 2d 483 (E.D. Va. 2003) ......................................................................................23
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...................................................................................................................5
Chavez v. Carranza, 559 F.3d 486 (6th Cir. 2009) .....................................................................................................5
Chesapeake Bay Ass’n v. Harbour Point Bldg. Corp., No. CL00-1893, 2002 Va. Cir. LEXIS 422 (Va. Cir. Ct. June 18, 2002)................................13
Clifford v. United States, No. 10-cv-774, 2011 U.S. Claims LEXIS 2168 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 8, 2011) ................................21
Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 U.S. 511 (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) .......................................................12
Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc., 403 F. Supp. 2d 1019 (W.D. Wash. 2005), aff’d, 503 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007) .....................25
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Simmonds, ___U.S.___, 132 S. Ct. 1414 (2012) ..........................................................................................7
Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000) ...................................................................................................................2
DelCostello v. Nat’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (1983) .................................................................................................................13
Doe I v. Nestle, S.A., 748 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (C.D. Cal. 2010) ...................................................................................19
Doe I v. State of Israel, 400 F. Supp. 2d 86 (D.D.C. 2005) ...........................................................................................27
Economopoulos v. Kolaitis, 259 Va. 806 (Va. 2000) ............................................................................................................24
Fritz v. Johnston, 209 Ill. 2d 302 (Ill. 2004) .........................................................................................................23
GPX Int’l Tire Corp. v. United States, 666 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................12
Handel v. Artukovic, 601 F. Supp. 1421 (C.D. Cal. 1985) ........................................................................................17
Hassin v. EPA, No. 96-cv-7873, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7476 (E.D. Ill. May 29, 2001) ................................21
Heinrich v. Sweet, 49 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D. Mass. 1999) ..........................................................................................22
Higginbotham v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., No. 04-cv-4909, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38011 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 22, 2005) ................................5
Hinkle v. Henderson, 85 F.3d 298 (7th Cir. 1996) .....................................................................................................10
Hoang Van Tu v. Koster, 364 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................6
Hollander v. Brown, 457 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2006) .....................................................................................................7
Holocaust Victims of Bank Theft v. Magyar Nemzeti Bank, No. 10-cv-1884, 2011 WL 1900340 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2011) ...............................................26
Hopson v. Aguair Law Office, No. 12-cv-771, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5844 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 15, 2013) .................................22
In re Afr.-Am. Slave Descendants Litig., 304 F. Supp. 2d 1027 (N.D. Ill. 2004) .......................................................................................6
In re Copper Antitrust Litig., 436 F.3d 782 (7th Cir. 2006) ...................................................................................................10
In re South African Apartheid Litig., 617 F. Supp.2d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) .........................................................................................7
Jean v. Dorelien, 431 F.3d 776 (11th Cir. 2005) ...................................................................................................6
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) ...................................................................................................................5
Jones v. Shooshan, 855 F. Supp. 2d 594 (E.D. Va. 2012) ........................................................................................9
Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 1995).......................................................................................................26
Kerwin v. Balhatchett, 147 Ill. App. 561 (Ill. App. Ct. 1909) ......................................................................................25
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petro. Co., __ U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013) ..........................................................................1, 12, 14, 15
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010)...............................................................................................14, 19
Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U.S. 350 (1991) .................................................................................................................13
Law v. Medco Research, Inc., 113 F.3d 781 (7th Cir. 1997) .....................................................................................................8
Limestone Dev. Corp. v. Vill. of Lemont, 520 F.3d 797 (7th Cir.2008) ......................................................................................................6
Logan v. Wilkins, 644 F.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2011) .....................................................................................................6
McPherson v. United States, 392 F. App’x 938 (3d Cir. 2010) ...............................................................................................6
Miller v. Rite Aid Corp., 334 F.3d 335 (3d Cir. 2003).....................................................................................................11
Mohamad v. Rajoub, 634 F.3d 604 (D.C. Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................18
Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 09-cv-1289, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76477 (D.D.C. May 31, 2013) ................................16
Morrison v. Nat’l Austl. Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869 (U.S. 2010) ...............................................................................................14, 15
Mwani v. Bin Laden, No. 99-cv-125, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74822 (D.D.C. May 29, 2013) ..................................16
Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995) .......................................................................................................8
Nemmers v. United States, 795 F.2d 628 (7th Cir. 1986) .....................................................................................................1
Papa v. United States, 281 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................................6
Planned Parenthood of Ind., Inc. v. Comm’r of the Ind. State Dep’t of Health, 699 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2012) ...................................................................................................18
Pramuk v. Purdue Calumet Univ., No. 12-cv-77, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177302 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 14, 2012) ................................7
Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., 244 F. Supp. 2d 289 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ......................................................................................26
Ray v. Maher, 662 F.3d 770 (7th Cir. 2011) .....................................................................................................7
Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004) .................................................................................................................25
Samirah v. O’Connell, 335 F.3d 545 (7th Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................................11
Sampson v. Federal Republic of Germany, 975 F. Supp. 1108 (N.D. Ill. 1997) ..........................................................................................21
Sandy Creek Condominium Ass’n v. Stolt & Egner, 267 Ill. App. 3d 291 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 1994) ....................................................................24
Sarei v. Rio Tinto, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13312 (9th Cir. Cal. June 28, 2013) ..................................................16
Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC, 671 F.3d 736 (9th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................19
Scher v. Bayer Corp., 258 F.Supp.2d 190 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) .......................................................................................11
Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2010.) ................................................................................................18
Simon v. Republic of Iraq, 529 F.3d 1187 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ...............................................................................................11
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) ........................................................................................................2 12, 14
Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F.2d 774 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ...........................................................................................17, 18
Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007) ...................................................................................................................5
United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (1979) .............................................................................................................8, 10
Van Den Hul v. Baltic Farmers Elevator Co., 716 F.2d 504 (8th Cir.1983) ....................................................................................................11
Velez v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co. N.A., No. 12-cv-1008, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153716 (E.D. Va. Oct. 23, 2012) ............................24
Vine v. Republic of Iraq, 459 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2006) ...........................................................................................10
W.S. Kirkpatrick & Co. v. Envtl. Tectonics Corp., Int’l., 493 U.S. 400 (1990) .................................................................................................................25
White v. Paulsen, 997 F. Supp. 1380 (E.D. Wash. 1998) .....................................................................................22
Williams v. Buss, 538 F.3d 683 (7th Cir. 2008) .....................................................................................................7
Xuncax v. Gramajo, 886 F. Supp. 162 (D. Mass. 1995) ...........................................................................................17
The Third Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) – Plaintiffs’ fourth attempt to sue
Defendants1 – must be dismissed because the applicable statutes of limitation lapsed, the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and the Complaint contains no viable cause of action and
should be dismissed based on the Act of State Doctrine.
This putative class action arises from a single, three-day military conflict between
Serbians within Croatia and the Croatian Government that began on August 4, 1995. No
relevant statute of limitations extends long enough to accommodate Plaintiffs’ tardiness in
bringing this suit fifteen years after the fact—particularly where Defendants’ purported
involvement in aiding the Croatian Government was documented in the media in 1995 and
continuously thereafter. See Nemmers v. United States, 795 F.2d 628, 632 (7th Cir. 1986)
(statutes of limitation “bring cases to the legal system before memories fade and evidence
disappears”).
Even if the relevant statutes of limitations did not foreclose this action, geography does.
This Term, in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petro. Co., __ U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 1659, 1660 (2013), the
United States Supreme Court held there is a strong presumption that federal jurisdiction, no
matter how invoked, does not extend to extraterritorial torts, whether based on international law
or otherwise. All of the injuries alleged here occurred in Croatia, and claims based on those
injuries cannot be maintained in a federal court.
1 Claims initially were brought against MPRI, Inc. (“MPRI”). After the alleged events, MPRI was acquired by L-3 Communications Corporation (“L-3”) and ultimately merged into Defendant L-3 Services, Inc. (“L-3 Services”), an L-3 subsidiary. In July 2012, L-3 spun off certain businesses and during that process L-3 Services was acquired by Engility Corporation (“Engility”). Effective July 18, 2012, Engility is the only proper Defendant. Even if this motion is denied as to Engility, it should be granted as to L-3 Services, which no longer carries any liability for MPRI’s historical activities.
During the time this case was stayed, Plaintiffs’ claims continued to erode. In November
2012, former Croatian Generals Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač were acquitted of all charges
by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (“ICTY”) Appeals Chamber.
Compl. ¶ 60.2 Plaintiffs have relied heavily on the facts alleged against these individuals as
support for their own claims and continue to do so even where the ICTY has now rejected those
claims. See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 37, 60-69. While ICTY findings and rulings are not binding on this
case, the Gotovina and Markač acquittals nonetheless lend further support to the argument that
the Court should dismiss this case based on the Act of State Doctrine, rather than wade into
issues of international sovereignty over which global opinion is sharply divided.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On August 4, 1995, the Croatian Government began “Operation Storm,” a three-day
military campaign within Croatia’s Krajina region. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 57, 60. Each of the putative
class representatives claims to have suffered loss of real property and unspecified personal
property from the artillery bombardment on August 4, 1995 and from their ensuing efforts to
escape. Compl. ¶¶ 73, 76, 77, 92. On the first day of the military operation, Plaintiffs Jovic and
Mijic both set off toward Bosnia. Compl. ¶¶ 74-79. Plaintiff Jovic and her family now reside in
Serbia and have lived there for the last sixteen years. Compl. ¶ 76. Plaintiff Mijic and her
family have resided in the United States since July 2000. Compl. ¶ 79. After moving to New
Zealand for twelve years, Plaintiff Grubor now resides in Belgrade, Serbia. Compl. ¶ 91.
Plaintiffs Bosko Bjegovic and Dalibor Mrkalj have both lived in the United States for
approximately 15 years. Compl. ¶¶ 93, 102. Bjegovic initially relocated to Serbia and moved to
the U.S. in 1998, becoming a U.S. citizen in 2004. Compl. ¶¶ 99-100. Mrkalj moved to Serbia
2 ICTY Appeals Chamber Judgment Vol. I at 4, Judgment, Prosecutor v. Gotovina, Case No. IT-06-90-A (Nov. 16, 2012) (available at http://www.icty.org/x/cases/gotovina/acjug/en/ 121116_judgement. pdf).
in 1995 and then to the Chicago area in 1998, where he became a U.S. citizen and lives today.
Compl. ¶ 106.
As early as August 20, 1995, the Chicago Tribune reported that “MPRI . . . provided
training [to the Croatian military] in [various forms of] warfare[.]” Compl. ¶ 41(b) n.8. In early
November 1995, London’s The Observer published a story entitled Invisible US Army Defeats
Serbs, quoting an unidentified Croatian officer saying “we needed [Defendants] for Operation
Storm when we took the Krajina.” Compl. ¶ 47 n.9. In addition to these two publications cited
by Plaintiffs in their Complaint, there were books, articles, and other media making the same
claims, a number of which are also cited in the Complaint. See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 120 n.19, 37 n.6.
Moreover, the four iterations of Plaintiffs’ Complaint have relied upon the ICTY
indictments of former Croatian Generals Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač for factual content
about alleged wrongdoing during Operation Storm. See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 60, n.5, 13, 71. But, in
November 2012, these former Croatian Generals were acquitted of all charges by the ICTY
Appeals Chamber, id. ¶ 60, on a finding that no “joint criminal enterprise” existed in connection
with their involvement in Operation Storm,3 that the bombardment at issue in this case was not
illegal,4 and that the deportations, forcible transfers and persecutions alleged here did not
constitute violations of international law.5 Despite this ruling, Plaintiffs now assert, for the first
time, that Defendants took a lead role as a “co-conspirator of the plan to expel the Krajina Serb
population” and “directly participated in the joint criminal enterprise.” Compl. ¶111.
3 ICTY Appeals Chamber Judgment ¶ 96, Prosecutor v. Ante Gotovina (IT-06-90-A) (finding that “no reasonable trial chamber could conclude that the only reasonable interpretation of the circumstantial evidence on the record was the existence of a JCE with the common purpose of permanently removing the Serb civilian population from the Krajina by force or threat of force”). 4 Compare Compl. ¶¶ 1, 73, 77, 84, 96, 98 with ICTY Appeals Chamber Judgment ¶ 84, Prosecutor v. Ante Gotovina (IT-06-90-A). 5 Compare Compl. ¶¶ 347, 62, 123 with ICTY Appeals Chamber Judgment ¶ 97, Prosecutor v. Ante Gotovina (IT-06-90-A).
A complaint must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief, Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), meaning that it must contain allegations that “raise a right to
relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). This
means “something more . . .than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a
legally cognizable right of action.” Id. Bare legal conclusions “are not entitled to the
assumption of truth” and do not suffice. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. On a Rule 12(b) motion, the
Court may properly consider the complaint, all documents incorporated into it by reference, and
matters of which a court may, in the normal course, take judicial notice. See Tellabs, Inc. v.
Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007).6 Further, if allegations in the complaint
show that relief is barred by the statute of limitations, the complaint is subject to dismissal.
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007); Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 579 (7th Cir. 2009).
ARGUMENT
I. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE TIME-BARRED.
The Complaint is time barred on its face under every potential period of limitations from
Virginia’s and Illinois’ two-year limitations to the ten-year window frequently borrowed from
the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1992 (“TVPA”) § 2(c). While the ATS does not contain an
explicit statute of limitations, for claims comparable to those pleaded by Plaintiffs, all of the
courts to have addressed the issue7 agree that the ten-year limitation period governing claims
under the closely analogous TVPA applies. Chavez v. Carranza, 559 F.3d 486, 492 (6th Cir.
6 Courts routinely take judicial notice of public statements, not to prove truth of assertions they contain, but to show the statements were made or to assess the speaker’s state of mind. See, e.g., Higginbotham v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., No. 04-cv-4909, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38011, at *5-6 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 22, 2005). 7 As this Court is not one of the courts that has had occasion to rule upon this issue, these papers illustrate for the Court several possible interpretations of the limitations period applicable to the ATS, including that it operates akin to a statute of repose. The claims in this lawsuit are untimely under any theory.
2009); Jean v. Dorelien, 431 F.3d 776, 778-79 (11th Cir. 2005); Cabello v. Fernandez-Larios,
402 F.3d 1148, 1153 (11th Cir. 2005); Hoang Van Tu v. Koster, 364 F.3d 1196, 1199 (10th Cir.
2004); Papa v. United States, 281 F.3d 1004, 1012 (9th Cir. 2002); McPherson v. United States,
392 F. App’x 938, 945 (3d Cir. 2010); see also In re Afr.-Am. Slave Descendants Litig., 304 F.
Supp. 2d 1027, 1069 (N.D. Ill. 2004) (dicta). Particularly given the direct and overt nature of the
injuries that Plaintiffs allege they suffered, their claims arose—and the limitation period began to
run—on August 4, 1995 when Operation Storm commenced, and fifteen years before they
initiated this action on August 17, 2010. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 57. Applying the ten-year statute adopted
from the TVPA, Plaintiffs were required to bring their ATS claim no later than August 4, 2005.
They allowed that deadline to pass, then waited another five years to file suit. Thus, their claims
are time-barred. Nor are Plaintiffs able to avail themselves of equitable tolling theories in order
to avoid this outcome, having pleaded facts that preclude any such relief.
Furthermore, any limitation period, when applied to the ATS, should not be subject to
tolling both because the ATS is a jurisdictional statute, and also because it is triggered when a
cause of action arises. See McCann v. Hy-Vee, Inc., 663 F.3d 926, 930 (7th Cir. 2011) (such a
trigger is not subject to tolling). And finally, under the Rules of Decision Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1652,
the claims at issue are governed by an even shorter state statute of limitations than the TVPA’s
ten-year period.
A. Even if a Ten-Year Limitation Period Applied And Were Subject to Tolling, Plaintiffs Do Not Plead Facts Sufficient to Invoke that Relief and Their Complaint Is Therefore Untimely.
Under the law of this Circuit, “when the allegations of the complaint reveal that relief is
barred by the applicable statute of limitations, the complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to
state a claim. See Logan v. Wilkins, 644 F.3d 577, 582-83 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Andonissamy
v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 547 F.3d 841, 847 (7th Cir. 2008)); Limestone Dev. Corp. v. Vill. of
upon the accrual of some claim.” McCann, 663 F.3d at 930 (emphasis added).9 The TVPA is
triggered by an external event which may not be related to the accrual of a claim, like the
proverbial sponge negligently left in a patient, which may not cause harm or be discovered but
that still triggers a statute of repose. See Hinkle v. Henderson, 85 F.3d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1996).
A statute of repose is not subject to tolling and is intended to “protect defendants and the courts
from having to deal with cases in which the search for truth may be seriously impaired by the
loss of evidence, whether by death or disappearance of witnesses, fading memories,
disappearance of documents, or otherwise.” Kubrick, 444 U.S. at 117. Like a classic statute of
repose, the ten-year limitation in the TVPA begins running not when the claim accrued but,
rather, when the injury occurred and the cause of action arose.
The distinction between “arose” and “accrued” was best explained in Vine v. Republic of
Iraq, 459 F. Supp. 2d 10, 20-21 (D.D.C. 2006), aff’d on other grounds, sub nom Republic of Iraq
v. Beaty, 556 U.S. 848 (2009). There, the court held that the plaintiffs’ injuries arose in
December 1990, when they were held as hostages by the Iraqi regime, and not in April 1996,
when Congress amended the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and permitted plaintiffs to sue
Iraq. Id. at 21. At the time, the FSIA’s ten-year limitation was worded almost exactly as is
section 2(c), but, unlike section 2(c), expressly permitted equitable tolling. In so holding, the
court drew a distinction between when a cause of action “arises” and when it “accrues.” Id. “A
claim ‘arises’ on the date that the action in question occurred, yet does not ‘accrue’ until a prior
disability to suit is removed.” Id. By analogy, as currently worded, the ten-year period in
section 2(c) can expire before a cause of action accrues. As such, the use of the word “arose” as
9 Therefore, a true statute of limitation can never run before a plaintiff’s rights have matured. Unless Congress has provided otherwise, a claim arising under federal law accrues when the plaintiff has discovered or reasonably should have discovered the injury. See In re Copper Antitrust Litig., 436 F.3d 782, 789 (7th Cir. 2006); Coda v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446, 450 (7th Cir. 1990).
opposed to “accrued” demonstrates that section 2(c) is a statute of repose and not limitations.
And this distinction between “arose” and “accrued” is widely recognized in this and other
circuits. See Chang v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 599 F.3d 728, 734 (7th Cir. 2010) (“A claim
‘accrues’ when the statute of limitations begins to run; a claim that could not have been
discovered by the date on which it arose will not (in a jurisdiction with a discovery rule) accrue
then.”); Kaplan v. Shure Bros., Inc., 153 F.3d 413 n.6 (7th Cir. 1998) (“[A] cause of action can
‘arise’ before it ‘accrues.’”).10
Equitable tolling applies to a statute of limitations (because it can extend the time when
an action accrues), but it does not apply to a statute of repose (focused solely on when the cause
of action arose). Were it otherwise, it would have been unnecessary for Congress to have
inserted express equitable tolling language in the FSIA’s period of limitation. See 28 U.S.C. §
1605(f), repealed by Pub. L. No. 110-181, Div. A, Title X, § 1083(b)(1)(B), 122 Stat. 341 (Jan.
28, 2008); Simon v. Republic of Iraq, 529 F.3d 1187, 1194 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (“Section 1605(f)
expressly incorporates ‘principles of equitable tolling.’”). Section 1605(f) provided as follows:
No action shall be maintained under [§ 1605(a)(7)] unless the action is commenced not later than 10 years after the date on which the cause of action arose. All principles of equitable tolling, including the period during which the foreign state was immune from suit, shall apply in calculating this limitation period.
Such express tolling language is conspicuously absent from the TVPA.11
10 Van Den Hul v. Baltic Farmers Elevator Co., 716 F.2d 504, 510 n. 4 (8th Cir.1983) (noting that “in certain contexts, the words ‘accrue’ and ‘arise’ have significantly different meanings.”); Abramson v. P.J. Currier Lumber Co., 2001 WL 274772, *1, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1039, at *3 (D.N.H. Jan. 17, 2001) (“The point at which a cause of action ‘arises’ can be different from the point at which it ‘accrues.’”). 11 The fact that section 2(c) of the TVPA is titled “statute of limitations” cannot change the text or its meaning nor can it “limit the plain meaning of the text.” Samirah v. O’Connell, 335 F.3d 545, 548-49 (7th Cir. 2003) (quoting Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Balt. & Ohio R.R. Co., 331 U.S. 519, 528-29 (1947)); see, e.g., Miller v. Rite Aid Corp., 334 F.3d 335, 340 (3d Cir. 2003). Nor can a title be used to create an ambiguity. See Scher v. Bayer Corp., 258 F. Supp.2d 190, 193 (E.D.N.Y. 2003). Nor is the legislative history of the TVPA relevant, when one is seeking to have a court import its limitations period into
2. The Ten-Year Period Is Jurisdictional and Therefore Not Subject to Tolling.
A limitation period that is jurisdictional may not be tolled even if it is a true statute of
limitations, as opposed to statute of repose. See Arroyo v. United States, 656 F.3d 663, 679 (7th
Cir. 2011) (Posner, J., concurring). The ten-year period at issue here, even though borrowed
from the TVPA, is quintessentially jurisdictional because it applies solely to a jurisdictional
provision—section 1350. See Kiobel, 133 S. Ct. at 1660 (stating that the ATS is a jurisdictional
statute); see also Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 724 (2004). A limitation period
attached to a solely jurisdictional provision cannot be anything other than jurisdictional and, for
this reason too, equitable tolling is unavailable to Plaintiffs.
C. Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Time-Barred by the Governing State Statute of Limitations.
Plaintiffs’ common-law causes of action for conspiracy under Virginia and Illinois law
are—among other infirmities, discussed below—also time-barred by the applicable statutes of
limitation. As a first principle, Count IX (Conspiracy to Commit Forced Population Transfer and
Destruction of Property) and Count X (Conspiracy to Commit Unlawful Conversion of Property)
are putatively being heard on diversity jurisdiction and, therefore, state law governs the
limitations period. See Springman v. AIG Mktg., 523 F.3d 685, 688 (7th Cir. 2008) (state law
governs limitations defense in diversity suit). Both Illinois and Virginia provide a two year
limitations periods for these types of claims. 735 ILCS 5/13-202 (2008) (two-year limitation
another cause of action. Relying on legislative history is perilous under the best of circumstances, much like “entering a crowded cocktail party and looking . . . for one’s friends.” Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 U.S. 511, 519 (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). Where the legislative history unfolded nearly two centuries after the legislation at issue was enacted, the exercise is more like entering a crowded cocktail party and looking for one’s long deceased ancestors. When Congress wants the legislative history of one act to be used in interpreting another, it expressly so states. See GPX Int’l Tire Corp. v. United States, 666 F.3d 732, 742 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Here, there is nothing in the TVPA that states or even suggests that the law’s legislative history should somehow be used to interpret or inform a statute of limitations that has been exported by some courts and applied to another law.
personal liability at the time.” Sosa, 542 U.S. at 724. Second, uniform reliance on the state
statute of limitations is compelled by the Rules of Decision Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1652, which
provides that “[t]he laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the
United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of
decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1652. Since the Complaint points to no federal cause of action, the laws of the several states,
including those states’ statutes of limitations, necessarily apply.
II. THE COURT LACKS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION UNDER THE ATS, SECTION 1331, AND CAFA.
A. The Complaint Should be Dismissed Because Plaintiffs Cannot Overcome the Presumption Against Extraterritoriality.
The violations alleged in the Complaint are the purported result of a Croatian military
operation carried out within its own borders. Compl. ¶ 1. Thus, Kiobel is dispositive: neither
Section 1350 (ATS) nor Section 1331 provides a jurisdictional basis for wrongs committed
abroad. In Kiobel, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the presumption against extraterritoriality. The
Court also held that this presumption applied to jurisdictional statutes as well substantive ones,
and the Court further narrowed the scope of the ATS by making it unavailable for “violations of
the law of nations occurring outside the United States.” Kiobel, 133 S. Ct. at 1669.12 To
overcome this presumption of extraterritorial application, a plaintiff’s claims must “touch and
concern the territory of the United States [and] must do so with sufficient force.” Id. (citing
Morrison v. Nat’l Austl. Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869 (U.S. 2010) (emphasis added). However, it
is arguable whether a “touch and concern” analysis could even be applied to the purely
12 The Kiobel court also held that federal common law is subject to the presumption against extraterritorial application. Id. at 1668-69 (“Nothing about this historical context suggests that Congress also intended federal common law under the ATS to provide a cause of action for conduct occurring in the territory of another sovereign.). Thus, Plaintiffs’ attempt at jurisdiction via federal common law (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 146, 147) also fails for the reasons articulated in this section.
jurisdictional ATS without completely eviscerating the presumption against extraterritorial
application. Al Shimari v. CACI Int’l, Inc., 08-cv-827, at *18 (E.D. Va. June 25, 2013).
Here, the Plaintiffs cannot overcome this presumption. Operation Storm—the catalyst
for all of Plaintiffs’ alleged damages—took place in the Croatian cities of Knin, Titovi Karemice,
Grubori, Vrbnik, and Topusko. See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 1, 73, 77, 89, 94, 102, 110. Any allegedly
wrongful activities took place in Croatia:
1. Defendants purportedly finalized and solidified the operational plan for Operation Storm during at least 10 separate meetings that took place in Croatia (Compl. ¶¶ 41(d), 55-56);
2. Defendants allegedly had an Operation Storm preparation meeting with Croatian leaders on the Brioni Islands in Croatia (Compl. ¶ 55);
3. Defendants were allegedly present in Croatia during Operation Storm and monitored the military offensive from a Croatian operations center (Compl. ¶¶ 41(d), 116-117);
4. Plaintiffs claim the Defendants were present in Croatia often enough to provide the Croatian military with confidence (Compl. ¶ 41(d), 112);
5. Defendants allegedly provided instructional seminars in Croatia and sophisticated war-gaming computer simulations in Croatia (Compl. ¶¶ 41, 47, 50); and
6. Defendants purportedly sent a 14-member “advisory” team to Croatia in 1994 (Compl. ¶ 41(b)).
Simply: the War in the Balkans took place in the Balkans.
Indeed, this Court has already recognized that the conduct giving rise to the alleged
claims took place in Croatia. See Dkt. No. 39 (“Mem. Op.”) at 12 (in analyzing the “situs of
material events,” the Court found that “[b]oth parties concede that the bulk of material events
took place abroad,” and pointed out that Plaintiffs expressly argue that the “focus of this case is
primarily on MPRI’s activities in Croatia…” ). Any remaining activities such as maintaining a
corporate presence in the U.S. and making staffing and related decisions in Virginia do not
overcome the presumption against exterritorial application, as several courts have recently
confirmed. Kiobel, 133 S. Ct. at 1669; see also Morrison, 130 S. Ct. at 2884 (“[I]t is a rare case
enumerated genocidal acts in the Rome Statute with such intent. Plaintiffs do not plead (nor
could they) that any of Defendants’ personnel harbored any hatred or animosity towards the
Serbs, nor acted with the intent to destroy this group. Recognizing this, Plaintiffs plead that
Defendants had only the mens rea of “understanding” and “knowledge.” Compl. ¶ 139. Thus,
even if not preempted by the Proxmire Act, Count II fails.
Similar to claims for genocide, there exists no private right of action for crimes against
humanity outside of the ATS and, thus, Count III also fails. Heinrich ex rel. Heinrich v. Sweet,
49 F. Supp. 2d 27, 43 (D. Mass. 1999) (no recognized cause of action for civil responsibility for
crimes against humanity”); Hopson v. Aguair Law Office, No. 12-cv-771, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
5844, at *6 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 15, 2013) (where federal jurisdiction pleaded for war crimes and
crimes against humanity, “these grounds are criminal in nature and do not provide for private
causes of action or civil remedies”); White v. Paulsen, 997 F. Supp. 1380, 1387 (E.D. Wash.
1998).
Nor can Plaintiffs support their allegation of forced population transfer pursuant to
Article 49 of Fourth Geneva Convention13 because Defendants are not of the class that may be
prosecuted for such activity. See Compl. ¶ 141. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention
proffers liability only against an “Occupying Power.” See Article 49 of Fourth Geneva
Convention. Accordingly, Count VII fails because the defendant must be an “Occupying Power”
and Plaintiffs do not, nor could they, allege that Defendants ever occupied the Krajina.
13 Plaintiffs assert that Article 49 of Fourth Geneva Convention is the consensus of customary international law for a claim of forced population transfer. See Compl. at n.25.
D. Plaintiffs’ State Law Conspiracy Claims in Counts IX and X are not Sustainable as a Matter of Law.
Alleged violations of international law are properly brought under the ATS or TVPA,
Plaintiffs cannot instead bootstrap them to a catch-all claim for “unlawful conduct” under Illinois
and Virginia law. Nor, in any event, have Plaintiffs properly pleaded these causes of action
under Illinois or Virginia law.
1. Plaintiffs’ Claims for Conspiracy to Commit Forced Population Transfer and Destruction of Property Fail Under Both Illinois and Virginia Law.
The Complaint does not even bother to identify the elements of civil conspiracy in
Illinois or Virginia, let alone plead how such elements are satisfied.14 Plaintiffs also fail to allege
the requisite underlying tort or crime cognizable under Illinois or Virginia law for the
international law violations that they characterize as “Forced Population Transfer and
Destruction of Property” in Count IX. Fritz, 209 Ill. 2d at 307. In addition, under either Illinois
or Virginia law, Plaintiffs “must allege specific facts from which the existence of a conspiracy
may properly be inferred.” Fritz, 209 Ill. 2d at 318; Firestone v. Wiley, 485 F. Supp. 2d 694, 703
(E.D. Va. 2007) (stating to that to survive a motion to dismiss on common law civil conspiracy,
plaintiff must plead agreement in more than mere conclusory language because "a conspiracy
claim asserted in mere conclusory language is based on inferences that are not fairly or justly
drawn from the facts alleged" (quoting Bay Tobacco, LLC v. Bell Quality Tobacco Prods., LLC,
261 F. Supp. 2d 483, 499-500 (E.D. Va. 2003))). Plaintiffs fall short in this regard too, alleging
that General Vuono and Defendants’ representatives attended meetings together on Brioni Island
14 The requirements for a civil conspiracy in Illinois are: (1) a combination of two or more persons, (2) for the purpose of accomplishing by some concerted action either an unlawful purpose or a lawful purpose by unlawful means, (3) in the furtherance of which one of the conspirators committed an overt tortious or unlawful act. Fritz v. Johnston, 209 Ill. 2d 302, 317 (Ill. 2004). The elements for this claim under Virginia are substantially similar. See Firestone v. Wiley, 485 F. Supp. 2d 694, 703 (E.D. Va. 2007) (citing Glass v. Glass, 228 Va. 39, 321 S.E. 2d 69 (Va. 1984)).
perpetrating the alleged wrongful acts remains in existence. See Banco Nacional de Cuba v.
Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 428 (1964); see also Holocaust Victims of Bank Theft v. Magyar
Nemzeti Bank, No. 10-cv-1884, 2011 WL 1900340, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2011). Each of
these factors weighs in favor of the application of the Doctrine and the dismissal of this action.
The first factor requires that courts employ a “sliding scale,” whereby “[t]he more clear-
cut the alleged violation of international law, the less deference is due to the acts of a foreign
sovereign, and vice-versa.” Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., 244 F.
Supp. 2d 289, 345 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). The Act of State Doctrine should be applied “in a context . .
. in which world opinion [is] sharply divided.” Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 250 (2d Cir.
1995). On this sliding scale, the Croatian Government should receive considerable deference for
Operation Storm because world opinion is divided.15 Some, including Plaintiffs, condemn the
military campaign, whereas others, including the U.S. Government,16 have voiced support for the
campaign and credit it with ushering in the period of relative peace the Balkans enjoy today.17
Adding to this is the November 2012, ICTY appellate court acquitted of Croatian
Generals Gotovina and Markač, ruling that both had been erroneously convicted by the ICTY 15 Indeed, sixteen years later the International Court of Justice is still grappling with the legality of Operation Storm in a separate pending case between the states of Croatia and Serbia. See Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia) (Int’l Ct. of Justice), available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=cry&case=118&k=73 (last visited June 4, 2013) (subject to judicial notice for fact of pendency of the action in the International Court of Justice and the fact that allegations have been raised that genocidal acts were committed during Operation Storm). 16 David N. Gibbs, First Do No Harm: Humanitarian Intervention and the Destruction of Yugoslavia 164 (Vanderbilt Univ. Press 2009) (relied on by Plaintiffs, as cited at Compl. ¶ 20(c) n.3). Sources relied upon by Plaintiffs show measured U.S. Government support existed for the Operation Storm offensive. 17 Articles cited in Complaint: see, e.g., Uli Schmetzer, How West Let Croatia Sneak Arms, Chi. Trib., Aug. 20, 1995 (article cited at Compl. ¶ 41(b) n.8) (“Western diplomats believe the flow of arms and the presence of American advisers were part of a strategy masterminded by Washington and Bonn in the belief that a more powerful Croatia would force Bosnian Serbs to seek a negotiated settlement.”); see also Marcus Tanner, Croatia: A Nation Forged in War 298 (Yale Univ. Press 2010) (1997) (quoting International Security Review 1996, Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies, London, 1996 p. 67) (quoting President Clinton’s view that Operation Storm would lead to peace in the Balkans).
the exercise of a discretion demonstrably committed to the executive or legislature; but many
such questions uniquely demand single-voiced statement of the Government’s views.” Baker v.
Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 211 (1962). Adjudicating the legality of Operation Storm would pose the
threat of embarrassment to the U.S. Government and damage to current U.S. foreign policy
interests in the Balkans.18
Plaintiffs allege facts that, if taken as true, illustrate the U.S. Government condoned and
supported Croatians throughout Operation Storm. Plaintiffs’ sources claim Croatia would not
have acted “without the explicit approval of the U.S. government” and that President Clinton was
purportedly “rooting for the Croatians.”19 Croatia, a democratic ally and trading partner, has been
party to a Bilateral Investment Treaty20 with the U.S. since 2001—and remains the only
constituent portion of former Yugoslavia with which such relations have been established.21
Moreover, as recently as May 2012, President Obama “emphasized that the United States and
Croatia share a close relationship and a friendship that is based on a mutual commitment to
18 Even if this Court is not inclined to apply the Act of State Doctrine, Defendants respectfully request that the Court consider soliciting the position of the U.S. State Department before proceeding further. Although not dispositive, the State Department’s Statement of Interest would resolve the question whether the Executive Branch is concerned about potential foreign policy consequences of this Court’s considering either the legality of Operation Storm or the legitimacy of the Croatian Army’s objectives. See Allied Bank Int’l v. Banco Credito Agricola de Cartago, 757 F.2d 516, 521 n.2 (2d Cir. 1985) (noting, with respect to the “likely impact” on foreign relations, that “[t]his estimation may be guided but not controlled by the position, if any, articulated by the executive as to the applicability vel non of the doctrine to a particular set of facts. Whether to invoke the Act of State Doctrine is ultimately and always a judicial question.”). 19 Gibbs, supra note16, at 164 (relied upon by Plaintiffs, as cited at Compl. ¶ 20(c) n.3). 20 The long-form name of the treaty is the Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Croatia Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment, entered into on June 20, 2001. 21 U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Trade Compliance Center, available at http://tcc.export.gov/Trade_Agreements/All_Trade_Agreements/exp_002699.asp (last visited July 1, 2013) (subject to judicial notice for the purpose of demonstrating the fact of a bilateral investment treaty between U.S. and Croatia).
democracy, freedom, economic development and peace.”22 Were this Court to scrutinize the
uniquely governmental domestic military decisions in what Croatia considers its “War of
Independence,” relations between the two countries could be seriously impaired.
Nor has the current Croatian Government23 disavowed or denounced Operation Storm—a
factor crucial to the third Sabbatino prong. See Sabbatino, 376 U.S. at 428; Bodner v. Banque
Paribas, 114 F. Supp. 2d 117, 130 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) (finding the Act of State Doctrine not
implicated when the current French Government had disavowed the relevant actions of France’s
World War II-era Vichy regime). To the contrary, the Government of Croatia emphatically
celebrates that military campaign as the historic final battle of the Croatian War of Independence
and a point of national pride—even going so far as to create an annual public holiday to mark the
occasion. Compl. ¶ 118 n.17. Moreover, upon the acquittal of Generals Gotovina and Markač at
The Hague in November 2012, the President of Croatia issued a statement, saying in pertinent
part that “General Gotovina and Markač have spent eight years in prison as innocent men. It is
not easy to live with this. However, they have done this for Croatia and as Commander-in-Chief
I wish to thank them for the sacrifice they have made for their homeland.”24 Accordingly, this
Court should apply the Act of State Doctrine to dismiss this lawsuit.
22 Embassy of the Republic of Croatia in the USA, Washington D.C., Croatian Ambassador presented his Letter of Credence to U.S. President Barack Obama on May 2, 2012, available at http://us.mfa.hr/InfoPopup.aspx?mv=1047&pr=t&id=14313 (last visited June 5, 2013) (subject to judicial notice for fact of web publication of statement by Croatian Embassy). 23 After Tuđman’s death, public State Department documents report a Croatian coalition government was elected in 2000 that implemented Dayton Peace Accords. Bureau of European & Eurasian Affairs, U.S. State Dep’t, Apr. 6, 2011 Background Note: Croatia, available at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3166.htm (last visited Nov. 3, 2011) (subject to judicial notice for undisputed historical fact). 24 Office of the President of Croatia, Statement by President Josipović regarding the final verdict of the ICTY (Nov. 16, 2012), available at http://www.predsjednik.hr/16112013 (last visited June 5, 2013) (subject to judicial notice for fact of publication).
For the reasons stated herein, the Complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH STANDING ORDERS
Pursuant to this Court’s Standing Orders, counsel have exchanged correspondence and
engaged in a telephone conference attempting to resolve these issues, but were unsuccessful.
Respectfully Submitted, __/s James E. Tyrrell Jr.______ James E. Tyrrell, Jr. Joseph E. Hopkins Lisa Ann T. Ruggiero PATTON BOGGS LLP One Riverfront Plaza, 6th Floor Newark, New Jersey 07102 Tel: (973) 848-5600 Fax: (973) 848-5601 Attorneys for Defendants __/s Paul T. Fox______ Paul T. Fox Thomas E. Dutton C. Allen Foster David S. Panzer GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 77 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 3100 Chicago, Illinois 60601 (312) 456-8400 Attorneys for Defendants