Reference no: EM133433205

Brill and others (appellants) are 18 U.S. nationals and 298 foreign nationals who have brought suit against Chevron Corporation. Chevron purchased Iraqi crude oil from 2000 to 2002 and the funds from those purchases Brill v Chevron Corporation 804 Fed. Appx. 630 (N.D. Cal. 2020) Money to Iraq Is Not Money to Terrorists were then remitted to Saddam Hussein who then used the funds to finance terrorist activities in Israel during that same time. They allege that they and their families experienced harm from those attacks. their suit is based on the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) of 2001 that permits secondary liability claims against individuals and companies that aid and abet international terrorism as well as the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) that permits U.S. citizens to recover for the harm caused by U.S. corporations in foreign countries. The district court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim. Brill appealed.

Judicial Opinion

DONATO, District Judge Chevron's purchases of crude oil from a third-party seller, as alleged, do not constitute acts of international terrorism as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a). The mere fact that oil purchases allegedly included kickbacks that violated United Nations-imposed sanctions did not make the purchases terrorist acts. Appellants failed to plausibly allege that their injuries were "by reason of" Chevron's oil purchases, which requires a prox-imate causation showing and "a showing of at least some direct relationship between [Chevron's] acts and [Appellants'] injuries." To state an ATA secondary liability claim, Appel-lants must plausibly allege that Chevron aided and abetted persons who committed an act of international terrorism. 18 U.S.C. § 2333(d). Here, the nature of the terrorist acts had no connection to Chevron's indepen-dent purchase of crude oil, and there is no allegation that Chevron encouraged the acts. There is no alle-gation that Chevron had any relation to the terrorist organization that executed the attacks in Israel. At most, Chevron had a contractual relationship with a third party that sold Iraqi crude oil on the open mar-ket. Chevron's actions, as pleaded, did not amount to providing substantial assistance to the foreign terrorist organization that perpetrated the Israel attacks. If Chevron's purchases of crude oil constituted "substantial assistance" to the terrorist activity in Israel, Appellants did not sufficiently plead "actual knowledge by the alleged aider and abettor of the wrong and of his or her role in furthering it." Harmsen v. Smith, 693 F.2d 932, 943 (9th Cir. 1982) (collecting cases). Appellants' allegations at most indicate that Chevron knew that a portion of its purchase price of Iraqi crude oil would be remitted to Iraq as a kick-back. But they fail to allege any facts that indicate that Chevron knew its kickbacks would be used to provide financial support to the terrorist organization perpe-trating the terrorist activity in Israel. To state an aiding and abetting Alien Tort Statute

(ATS) (a federal law from 1789 that permits U.S. citizens to file suit for illegal acts by corporations in other countries) claim, Appellants must allege the requisite mens rea and actus reus-i.e., purposefully (or knowingly) providing substantial assistance to an international crime. We have yet to determine whether knowledge or purpose is the proper mens rea standard under the ATS. But Appellants' claims fail even under the less stringent knowledge standard. The allegations in the complaint at most suggest that Chevron knew that a kickback from its purchase of crude oil from a third party would be remitted to Iraq. But the allegation that Chevron knew this does not logically lead to the inference that Chevron knew that those funds were then provided to a terrorist organization and that those same funds were specifically used to finance the terrorist activity in Israel that resulted in the injuries to Appellants and their family members. The district court properly found that Appellants failed to sufficiently plead allegations to sustain their ATA and ATS claims against Chevron. Affirmed.

1. What are the legal and factual bases of the claims against Chevron?

2. What element of the case is missing for recovery to proceed?

3. Why is Chevron's knowledge that it knew Saddam Hussein would get the money not enough to establish the necessary mens rea?