"Advance of Cocoa-Slavery Case Divides 9th Circuit", 11 June 2015

Eight Ninth Circuit judges accused their colleagues of "substitut[ing] sympathy for legal analysis," in a ruling permitting former child slaves to sue Nestle USA, and dissented from the full court's decision not to rehear the case.  Circuit Judge Carlos Bea wrote an 18-page dissent of the full court's decision not to rehear Doe v. Nestle en banc…The plaintiffs, named as John Does in a 2009 first amended complaint filed against Nestle USA and others in Los Angeles, claim that as children they were forced to work on Ivorian cocoa plantations…At issue is whether Nestle, a major cocoa purchaser, knew about and supported the conditions in the name of profit. The amended majority opinion, written by Judge Dorothy Nelson, ruled that the violation of universal norms may be a basis for an Alien Tort Statute claim against a corporation.