John DOE I; John Doe II; John Doe III, individually and on behalf of proposed class members; Global Exchange, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
NESTLE USA, INC.; Archer Daniels Midland Company; Cargill Incorporated Company; Cargill Cocoa, Defendants-Appellees.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Argued and Submitted December 2, 2013.
Filed September 4, 2014.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Paul Hoffman (argued), Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris Hoffman & Harrison, LLP, Venice, CA; Terrence Patrick Collingsworth , Conrad & Scherer, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff-Appellants.
Susan Hannah Farbstein , International Human Rights Clinic, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA, for Amicus Curiae Professors of Legal History.
Marco Simons , Earthrights International, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Earthrights International.
Jennifer M. Green , Director, Human Rights Litigation and International Advocacy Clinic University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, MN, for Amici Curiae Nuremberg Scholars.
David J. Scheffer , Northwestern University School of Law Bluhm Legal Clinic, Center for International Human Rights, Chicago, IL, for Amicus Curiae David J. Scheffer.
Peter Bowman Rutledge , Athens, GA, for Amici Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and the National Foreign Trade Council.
Meir Feder , Jones Day, New York, NY, for Amici Curiae National Association of Manufacturers and Professors of International and Foreign Relations Law and Federal Jurisdiction.
William Aceves , California Western School of Law, San Diego, CA, for Amicus Curiae International Law Scholars.
Jonathan Massey , Massey & Gail LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Nuremberg Historians and International Lawyers.
Before: DOROTHY W. NELSON, KIM McLANE WARDLAW, and JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
ORDER
The order filed December 19, 2013, and appearing at 738 F.3d 1048, is withdrawn, Carver v. Lehman,558 F.3d 869, 878-79 (9th Cir.2009), and is replaced by the opinion filed concurrently with this order. Our prior order may not be cited as precedent to any court. Moreover, with the original order withdrawn, we deem the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc moot. The parties may...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.