We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
Cottonham v. United States Embassy, Bankok,
Thailand, No. C-11-3131 (N.D. Cal. 2011), is almost a more
brief decision than this posting, but the issue is one worth
consideration for those in international practice.
Plaintiff Cottonham alleged that when he went to the U.S.
Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand to obtain more pages for his passport,
his passport was taken from him without explanation; that he was
then arrested in part for not having a passport; and then jailed in
Thailand for eight days.
Since Cottonham was a prisoner at the time he filed this
complaint (for reasons undisclosed in the District Court opinion),
the Court believed it was required to "engage in a preliminary
screening of any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental
entity".
Upon doing so, the Court reviewed the complaint and dismissed
it, with prejudice and without leave to replead. The Court's
ground was that the only possible claim was against the U.S.,
governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act, which, the Court said,
waived the sovereign immunity of the United States for certain
torts committed by federal employees acting within the scope of
their employment. However, there is an exception to the waiver of
sovereign immunity: to acts or omissions of the U.S. "arising
in a foreign country." 28 U.S.C. § 2680(k). The Court
went on:
This exception applies even if
"the tort occurs in a foreign area under United States
control." Nurse v. United States, 226 F.3d 996, 1003 (9th Cir.
2000). The foreign country exception "bars all claims based on
any injury suffered in a foreign country, regardless of where the
tortious act or omission occurred." Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,
542 U.S. 692, 712 (2004).
The District Court, however, did not consider whether other
causes of action might exist. Is it the case that there is and can
be no cause of action in a U.S. court against the U.S. by a U.S.
citizen allegedly mistreated by the U.S. on non-U.S. soil?
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
A discussion on the importance of the country of origin analysis, in the light of a settlement reached between the US Department of Justice and an importer of pigment.
Coming just three days after the TTP parties accepted Japan's entry bid, and less than a month since Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's announcement that Japan would apply to join the talks, the move clears the way for new trade proposals that carry significant consequences for the U.S. automotive sector.
On Tuesday, January 2, 2013 President Obama signed into law the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (the "FY 2013 NDAA"), a large legislative package that includes the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (the "IFCPA") -- the fourth major legislative expansion of US sanctions against Iran in just the past two years.
