Court Revives Rendition Lawsuit Against Boeing Unit
Business Law
A federal appeals court Tuesday revived a lawsuit alleging that a unit of Boeing Co. (BA) helped the Central Intelligence Agency seize terrorism suspects abroad and secretly transfer them to other countries for interrogation.
The ruling reinstates allegations by five men who claim that U.S. operatives - with support from Jeppesen Dataplan Inc., a Boeing unit - abducted them and sent them to other countries where they were tortured. They allege that Jeppesen provided critical flight planning and logistical support to the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" program. The men are seeking unspecified monetary damages from the company.
The Bush administration had intervened on behalf of Jeppesen and warned that allowing the lawsuit to go forward could threaten national security. The Obama administration has made the same arguments.
A federal trial judge dismissed the case last year, ruling that it could not proceed because the very subject matter of the lawsuit was a state secret. But on Tuesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the trial judge was wrong to dismiss the case at such an early stage in the proceedings.
"According to the government's theory, the judiciary should effectively cordon off all secret government actions from judicial scrutiny, immunizing the CIA and its partners from the demands and limits of the law," 9th Circuit Judge Michael Daly Hawkins wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel.
Though it revived the lawsuit, the appeals court said the government could assert a state-secrets privilege to protect specific pieces of secret evidence in the case. The court sent the case back to the trial judge for further proceedings.
A Jeppesen spokesman said the company was reviewing the ruling and had no comment. The U.S. Justice Department also said it was reviewing the decision.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the plaintiffs, called the ruling historic.
"Our clients, who are among the hundreds of victims of torture under the Bush administration, have waited for years just to get a foot in the courthouse door," ACLU attorney Ben Wizner said. "Now, at long last, they will have their day in court."
Related listings
-
Fed court revives rendition lawsuit against Boeing
Business Law 04/29/2009A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that a Boeing Co. subsidiary can be sued for allegedly flying terrorism suspects to secret prisons around the world to be tortured as part of the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" program. A unanimous three-judg...
-
Judge upholds $100M Mattel verdict over Bratz
Business Law 04/28/2009A federal judge upheld a $100 million jury verdict Monday for Mattel Inc. in a lengthy legal battle over rights to the Bratz doll, a rival to Mattel's Barbie. U.S. District Judge Stephen Larson also confirmed in his ruling late Monday that the Bratz ...
-
Industrial production drops more than expected
Business Law 04/15/2009Industrial production fell for the fifth straight month in March, the government said Wednesday, as companies cut output in order to clear stockpiles of goods. But economists expect that trend to moderate soon, as businesses bring inventories in line...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.