dismissed their claims and their requests for injunctive relief

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document 118 Filed 06/26/12 Page 2 of 56I. BackgroundA. Procedural HistoryPlaintiffs initially filed suit as members of a putativeclass in a predecessor action entitled Bano v. Union CarbideCorporation, which was ultimately dismissed on statute oflimitations grounds. See Bano v. Union Carbide Corp., No. 99Civ. 11329, 2003 WL 1344884 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2003), aff’d inpart, 361 F.3d 696 (2d Cir. 2004). Those Plaintiffs whopresented timely claims re-filed the instant suit against UCC(together with its former CEO Warren Anderson, “Defendants”),seeking monetary damages and medical monitoring for injuriesallegedly caused by exposure to soil and drinking water pollutedby hazardous wastes produced by the Union Carbide India Limited(“UCIL”) plant in Bhopal, India (the “Bhopal Plant”). Prior to1994, UCIL was a partly-owned subsidiary of UCC. UCC ultimatelydivested itself of the subsidiary, after which time UCIL changedits name to Eveready Industries India Limited (“EIIL”). NeitherUCIL nor EIIL are named as defendants. Instead, Plaintiffs seekto hold UCC and Anderson liable for their injuries on thegrounds that (1) they were direct participants and jointtortfeasors in the activities that resulted in the pollution;(2) they worked in concert with UCIL to cause, exacerbate, orconceal the pollution; and (3) UCIL acted as UCC’s alter ego,justifying piercing the corporate veil.2
Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document 118 Filed 06/26/12 Page 3 of 56On May 18, 2005, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaintpursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of CivilProcedure and/or for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56. TheCourt converted that portion of the motion styled as a motion todismiss into a motion for summary judgment on the grounds thatmatters outside the pleadings had been presented to the Courtand that Plaintiffs were on notice that such a conversion waspossible. Sahu v. Union Carbide Corp. (Sahu I), 418 F. Supp. 2d407, 410-11 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). The Court then granted summaryjudgment in favor of Defendants on all claims, except for whathas heretofore been referred to as Plaintiffs’ veil-piercingclaim. Id. at 416. With respect to the veil-piercing claim,the Court reserved decision so Plaintiffs could conductdiscovery pursuant to Rule 56(d) regarding “EIIL and itscorporate relationship to UCIL and UCC.” Id. After the closeof Rule 56(d) discovery, by opinion and order dated November 20,2006, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendantson the veil-piercing claim. Sahu v. Union Carbide Corp. (SahuII), No. 04 Civ. 8825, 2006 WL 3377577 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2006).The Second Circuit addressed in a single opinion both theinitial grant of summary judgment on the non-veil-piercingclaims and the subsequent grant of summary judgment on the veilpiercingclaim. Sahu v. Union Carbide Corp., 548 F.3d 59 (2dCir. 2008). Twice noting that it was a “close case” or “close3
Page 1: Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document
Page 5 and 6: Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document
Page 52 and 53:
Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56:
show all

dismissed their claims and their requests for injunctive relief

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?