Jam v. Int'l Fin. Corp.

Jam v. Int'l Fin. Corp.

Opinion

 [*407]  Rogers, Circuit Judge: Appellants allege that the International Finance Corporation negligently lent funds to a power-generation project in India, which damaged their environment, health, and livelihoods. Because the gravamen of appellants' complaint is injurious activity that occurred in India, the United States' courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction, see OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, 577 U.S. 27, 35-36, 136 S. Ct. 390, 193 L. Ed. 2d 269 (2015), and the district court's dismissal on that ground is affirmed.

Appellants are residents of Gujarat, India, a government entity from the same region, and a nonprofit focused on [**2]  fishworkers' rights. The International Finance Corporation ("IFC") is an international organization, established by Articles of Agreement among its 185 member countries.¹ Appellants' allegations have been fully described in prior opinions. See Jam v. Int'l Fin. Corp. (Jam II), 139 S. Ct. 759, 765-67, 203 L. Ed. 2d 53 (2019); Jam v. Int'l Fin. Corp. (Jam I), 860 F.3d 703, 704, 429 U.S. App. D.C. 410 (D.C. Cir. 2017); Jam v. Int'l Fin. Corp. (Jam III), 442 F. Supp. 3d 162, 166-69 (D.D.C. 2020). For present purposes, a summary will suffice: Appellants allege that they have been injured by operations of the coal-fired Tata Mundra Power Plant (the "Plant"), which is located in India and owned and operated by Coastal Gujarat Power Limited ("CGPL"). IFC loaned funds for the project and conditioned disbursement of those funds on CGPL's compliance with certain environmental standards. Appellants allege that IFC negligently failed to ensure that the Plant's design and operation complied with these environmental standards but nonetheless disbursed funds to CGPL. These supervisory omissions and disbursement decisions allegedly took place at IFC's headquarters in the United States, specifically in Washington, D.C.

The district court initially dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, based on then-binding circuit precedent that international organizations like IFC enjoyed virtually absolute [**3]  immunity from suit. Jam v. Int'l Fin. Corp., 172 F. Supp. 3d 104, 108-09, 112 (D.D.C. 2016). This court affirmed in Jam I, 860 F.3d at 708, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that such organizations possess more limited immunity equivalent to that enjoyed by foreign governments, Jam II, 139 S. Ct. at 765.  [*408]  Applying the new standard on remand, the district court in February 2020 again ruled that IFC was immune from appellants' claims. Jam III, 442 F. Supp. 3d at 179. The district court in August 2020 denied as futile appellants' motion for leave to amend their complaint, reasoning that IFC would remain entitled to immunity, even crediting the allegations of the proposed amended complaint. Jam v. Int'l Fin. Corp., 481 F. Supp. 3d 1, 4, 13-14 (D.D.C. 2020).

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.