Full opinion text
CONSOLIDATED OMNIBUS ORDER DISMISSING THE CASES FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION MARTINEZ, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION In 1980 the Second Circuit’s Filartiga v. Pena-Irala decision held that official torture is prohibited under the law of nations, which ushered in a new era of litigation under the Alien Tort Claims Act (“ATCA”). 630 F.2d 876 (2d. Cir.1980). Since then, a number of individuals who directly engaged in violent human rights abuses, especially torture and extrajudicial killing, have been found liable. Within the last decade, a significant number of cases have been filed that allege that major United States corporate entities are vicariously liable for human rights abuses abroad under the ATCA or the Torture Victim Protections Act (“TVPA”). Due to the more abstract and diffuse nature of the corporate entities involved, this task is necessarily more difficult. In order to prove his or her case, a plaintiff must connect actions and actors on the ground to subsidiary corporate entities, and in turn show the vicarious liability of the United States corporations. Furthermore, it is difficult to demonstrate a relationship between corporate entities and the state actions that are a requirement for most ATCA torts. As a result, it has been noted in oral argument before the Supreme Court that “in the corporate realm, there has not been a judgment yet against a corporation in an alien tort statute case.” Although the Eleventh Circuit has recently considered a case that involved violence against trade unionists in Guatemala, the facts alleged in the four consolidated cases before this Court are unprecedented. The instant cases allege that paramilitary actors, whose actions should be imputed to the Republic of Colombia through “color of law” analysis, have used violence and threats of violence to systematically intimidate members of Colombia’s largest food and beverage trade union, Sindicato Na-cional de Trabajadores de la Industria de Alimentos (“Sinaltrainal”). Furthermore, the cases allege that the acts of violence and intimidation by the paramilitaries were done at the direction of, or with the cooperation of, managers that worked at soft drink bottling plants in Colombia. The complaints further allege that these plant managers were working within the scope of their duties at their respective bottling plants, which are foreign affiliates of United States corporations. In other words, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants hired or conspired with paramilitaries (or local officials in one of the cases) to “rid” four Colombian bottling plants of the Sinaltrainal union, and that the Colombian government endorses or tacitly condones this activity. These four cases present difficult legal questions that have not been squarely addressed by the Eleventh Circuit about how to properly evaluate subject matter jurisdiction in the ATCA context. Furthermore, these cases rely on legal theories which are untested in any federal court. While the general requirements of notice pleading are well established, some of the seminal decisions involving the Alien Tort Claim Act indicate that federal courts must engage in “a more searching preliminary review of the merits,” and that pleading “merely a colorable violation of the law of nations” is not a sufficient basis for jurisdiction. However, federal appellate courts have not squarely defined the proper task of a district court in evaluating subject matter jurisdiction under the ATCA, particularly in the context of cases involving theories of indirect liability that rely on attenuated connections between the individuals who physically committed torts, state entities, and multiple layers of corporate entities. Thus, this Court faces a difficult task in determining whether the instant complaints’ harrowing allegations of violence and abuse, coupled with murky allegations regarding the relationships between the violent actors, state entities, and corporate entities, sufficiently plead a violation of the of the law of nations to afford this Court subject matter jurisdiction. Indeed, if the complaints merely allege torts and crimes of a local nature, as opposed to torts in violation of the law of nations, then this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. A number of district courts have struggled with this dilemma, and some, with great reluctance, have acquiesced to a finding that subject matter jurisdiction exists and that the case should proceed. Although the principles of notice pleading are enshrined in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and a body of interpretive case law, it is equally well established that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Furthermore, language in the Supreme Court’s recent ATCA decision suggests a need for “judicial caution” in implementing the jurisdiction of the ATCA. See Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 725, 124 S.Ct. 2739, 159 L.Ed.2d 718 (2004). Demonstrating indirect liability for human rights abuses on the part of corporate entities is an inherently difficult task, and there is a risk that too high a pleading standard will prevent the discovery necessary to unearth involvement in the misdeeds that Congress hoped to remedy through the ATCA and the TVPA. However, there is also a risk that vague, conclusory, and attenuated allegations will allow individuals (and often the interest groups that finance or otherwise support their litigation) to engage in unwarranted international “fishing expeditions” against corporate entities and to abuse the judicial process in order to pursue political agendas. The district court’s proper role in balancing these competing concerns has not been well defined. However, a number of cases suggest that a district court’s task of recognizing violations of customary international law must be informed by the nature of the factual allegations before it. This Court does not purport to articulate a precise standard of pleading that is necessary to survive the “searching review of the merits” to ensure that a sufficiently colorable violation of the law of nations has been pled. After wrestling with the allegations of the instant cases, this Court concludes that the Plaintiffs’ allegations in the instant cases are too conclusory, too vague, and too attenuated to adequately plead a violation of the law of nations to support subject matter jurisdiction. This Court first provides a brief overview of the basic facts and procedural history of the cases before it. Next, it discusses the body of case law discussing the level of appropriate review for determining whether a violation of the law of nations has been plead. It then evaluates the adequacy of the pleadings in the instant cases and finds that Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged a colorable violation of the law of nations for this Court to properly exercise subject matter jurisdiction in-these eases. Finally, it discusses other pending issues in the cases, including improper and futile attempts amend the complaints. II. RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The four cases before this Court, which are factually related, have been administratively consolidated for pretrial purposes. (D.E. No. 151) in Case No. 01-CIV-3208 (consolidating case for pretrial purposes only and designating Case No. 01-CIV-3208 as the lead case). All of the cases involve violence and threats of violence against trade unionists in Colombia who have been employed in the soft drink beverage bottling industry and are members of Sinaltrainal (“Sinaltrainal” or “union”). Defendants are corporate entities, as well as one individual, that are involved in the soft drink bottling industry, more specifically in the business of bottling and distributing Coca-Cola products. The general gravemen of the Complaints is that the defendant corporations and individuals are vicariously liable, through theories of conspiracy, aiding and abetting, or joint action, for the violent actions of paramilitary members — whose actions should be imputed to the Republic of Columbiain an attempt to intimidate union members and squelch union activity. These cases were originally filed in a single action before the Honorable Paul C. Huck. After Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of subject matter and personal jurisdiction (D.E. No. 35), which was fully briefed (D.E. Nos. 38 and 43), the Plaintiffs were given leave file an amended complaint in the original action (D.E. No. 48) and to file three new actions. Thus, the original suit became the four separate actions currently before the Court. In the instance of two of the resulting suits, the Gil and Leal actions, amended complaints were filed, which represented a third version of the allegations in those cases. The Defendants jointly filed a second consolidated Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (D.E. No. 54 in Case No. 01-CIV-3208-MARTINEZ), which was filed in all four cases and is fully briefed. See (Case No. 01-CIV-3208-MARTINEZ D.E. Nos. 57 and 63). An extensive four-hour session of oral argument was held before then-presiding Judge Huck. Shortly thereafter, the Sinaltrainal actions were randomly reassigned to this Court by the Clerk of the Southern District of Florida for administrative reasons. (D.E. No. 91). On March 28, 2003 this Court issued an order which inter alia, dismissed the claims against the Coca-Cola defendants in all of the instant lawsuits for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as well as the claims pursuant to RICO. See generally (D.E. No. 103). This Court denied reconsideration of that order and also denied a motion to certify the order as a final judgment. Subsequently, this Court has held several extensive hearings, one of which included witness testimony, regarding issues of personal jurisdiction, the appropriateness of granting leave to amend several of the complaints, and the issue of sanctions relating to the reassertion of claims that had already been dismissed. However, this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction is still a contested and unresolved issue. While the factual allegations of the cases are familiar to the parties, this Court provides a brief overview of the basic factual allegations underlying the four Sinaltrainal actions. All four of the complaints allege claims against companies that bottle Coca-Cola brand soft drinks. In the Gil case, the local bottler is Bebidas y Alimentos de Uraba, S.A. (“Bebidas”), which is allegedly owned and controlled by Defendant Richard Kirby, who resides in the Southern District of Florida. The Plaintiffs most recent Second Amended Complaint also alleges claims against Island Capital Investments, Inc., which is allegedly the “corporate shell” or “mere instrumentality” that Kirby uses to control Bebidas. Id. at ¶ 16. Similarly, the Gctlvis, Garcia, and Leal suits assert claims against the local bottlers that are owned and operated by Panamco Industrial de Gaseosas, S.A. (a/k/a Panamco Colombia, S.A.) (“Panamco Colombia”). Plaintiffs allege that Panam-erican Beverages, Inc. (“Panamerican”) and Panamco LLC (“Panamco”) are vicariously liable for the actions of Panamco Colombia by virtue of an alter ego or agency relationship. The essence of the complaints is that each of the bottling companies in Colombia is responsible for the efforts of its agents to intimidate members of the Sinaltrainal unions at each of the respective plants involved in the suits through cooperation with the Colombian right-wing paramilitaries. As is discussed infra, these allegations essentially rest on the theory that members of management at each of the four plants conspired with paramilitaries, who are operating under “color of law,” to intimidate union members and attempt to eliminate the union. Accordingly, Sinal-trainal is a named plaintiff in each of the four complaints. As both parties agree, the situation in Colombia has. been nothing less than tragic. The events giving rise to these claims occurred against a backdrop of civil unrest that has plagued Colombia with violence and terror for over forty years. The civil unrest in Colombia includes clashes between so called left-wing guerrilla groups and right-wing paramilitary groups, particularly the United Self-Defense Group of Columbia (“AUC”). Colombian civilians at large have suffered from numerous murders, kidnappings, and other violent acts. The Court now provides a brief overview of the more specific allegations of the four operative complaints in the instant cases. 1. The Gil Complaint Plaintiffs in this action are two individuals who allegedly represent the estate of Isidro Segundo Gil, who is deceased, and Luis Adolfo Cardona. Plaintiffs essentially allege that union leader Isidro Segundo Gil was murdered, by paramilitaries inside the Bebidas y Alimentos de Uraba (“Bebi-das”) bottling Plant in Carepa, Colombia. Plaintiff Luis Adolfo Cardona, who is also a union leader, allegedly witnessed the murder of Gil, and he was later detained, tortured, and threatened by paramilitaries, before escaping and being forced to live in exile. Plaintiffs explain that in 1994 paramilitaries murdered two Bebidas workers who were members of the local Sinaltrainal union. Gil Compl. at ¶ 34. The paramilitary forces in Carepa began to intimidate union members, telling them to resign from the union upon “threat of physical harm.” Id. at ¶ 35. As a result, a number of union members “began leaving town,” and when the threats continued in 1995, every member of the executive board of the Sinaltrai-nal union had fled “in fear for their lives.” Id. In June of 1995, the local union elected a new executive board to replace the one that had fled, and Isidro Gil was elected as a member of this new board. Id. at ¶ 36. In September of 1995, Richard Kirby, one of the three shareholders of Bebidas, hired Ariosto Milan Mosquera to serve as the plant manager of the Bebidas plant. After Mosquera fired a union leader, a judge found the discharge was unlawful, and Be-bidas was ordered to rehire the employee. Id. at ¶ 37. As a result, “Mosquera began aggressively and publically threatening to destroy the union,” and he conspired with local paramilitary leaders to “drive the Union out of the [Bebidas] bottling plant using threats of violence, and if required, actual violence.” Id. at ¶ 38. Later, on December 5, 1996 at 9:00 a.m. two paramilitaries approached Gil when he was standing in the entranceway of the Bebidas plant. Id. at ¶ 45. The paramilitaries asked Gil if he was in fact Gil, and he confirmed that he was. Id. The paramilitaries told Gil that they needed to go into the plant to talk to someone inside. Id. Gil complied with their request and unlocked the door. “Isidro Gil proceeded to open the door and the two paramilitaries then shot him to death inside the plant.” Id. Later that night, the same paramilitaries started a fire that burned down the local Sinaltrainal union hall. Plaintiff Cardona, who was working inside the plant at the time, witnessed the murder of Isidro Gil. Id. at ¶ 46. Shortly after the murder, the “very same paramilitaries who killed” Gil, as well as the chief of the Carepa paramilitaries, kidnapped Cardona when he was on his way to a union meeting to discuss the murder of Gil. Id. The paramilitary chief brought Cardona to a local bar where eight paramilitaries, including the one who “personally killed” Gil, were waiting for Cardona. Cardona was held in the custody of the paramilitaries for an hour, and he was “tortured and subjected to cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment during this time by credible threats from the paramilitaries that he and his family would be murdered.” Id. The paramilitaries told Cardo-na that they were going to take him to the “banks of the river where they would further torture and then kill him because of his activism with the union” and because he witnessed the murder of Gil. However, Cardona “was able to escape the paramilitaries’ clutches as their car pulled up to take him to the river bank.” Id. Cardona and his family lived in hiding with the assistance of Sinaltrainal in Bogota and then in Medellin, Colombia. Cardo-na and his family eventually fled in exile to the United States, where they have applied for asylum. Id. The Gil Complaint alleges the following causes of action: extrajudicial killing pursuant both to the ATCA and TVPA; cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment; and wrongful death under Florida and Colombian law. 2. The Galvis Complaint Juan Carlos Galvis was the president of the local Sinaltrainal union in the Magdalena Medio region of Colombia. More specifically, the Panamco Colombia owned plant was in Barrancabermeja, Colombia, where intense conflicts have occurred between right-wing paramilitaries and left-wing guerillas. Galvis alleges that he has been receiving death threats from Colombia’s largest paramilitary group, the AUC, for ten years. The AUC has threatened to kill him if he does not stop his union activities and leave the Union. Threats have been made to Galvis personally and to his wife over the phone, in writing, and on the walls inside the Panamco Colombia bottling plant in Barracabermeja. On August 3, 2001, Galvis and his wife were stopped while driving their car past four armed paramilitaries, who then threatened Galvis with “physical harm, including assassination” if he did not “stop being such a loudmouth.” Galvis Compl. at ¶ 69. On August 18, 2001 his name appeared on an AUC “ ‘hit list — that is, a list of individuals which the AUC is threatening with murder — published in a local newspaper.’ ” Id. at ¶ 70. Thus, “Galvis is presently in imminent danger of being killed by the AUC, and has been forced to flee his home and family in search of places to hide from this danger.” Id. at ¶ 71. “On August 24, 2003, there was another unsuccessful attempt on the life of Galvis.” Id. at ¶ 72. “Two men on a motorcycle pulled up beside the car in which Galvis was traveling, with the rider firing his gun several times into his car.” Id. While Galvis “barely escaped with his life,” he was “placed in imminent fear of death during the this incident.” Id. The Galvis Complaint alleges torture, under both the ATCA and the TVPA, and cruel inhuman and degrading treatment pursuant to the ATCA. 3. The Garcia Complaint The facts of the Garcia Complaint arise from events at the Panamco Colombia plant in Bucaramanga. Sinaltrainal had a bargaining relationship with management at this plant for several years. In 1992 plant management began exhibiting antipathy toward the union, and accused the union leaders of being guerillas. In 1995 Panamco began to falter on its obligations under the labor agreement, which caused union members, led by Plaintiffs Garcia, Gonzalez, and Flores, to go on strike for approximately 120 hours. Plaintiffs allege that, as a result, Pamamco Colombia’s Bu-caramanga plant security chief, Jose Aponte, falsely accused the three individual Garcia Plaintiffs of planting a bomb. In response, local police entered the plant on March 6, 1996 and arrested Garcia, Gonzalez, and Flores. Colombian authorities later found that there was no bomb in the plant. While in transport to the jail, Plaintiff Flores was “repeatedly and brutally beaten by police.” Id. at ¶ 36. Police officers also pointed a gun at him, threatening to shoot him. Plaintiffs allege that Aponte filed false charges against Plaintiffs “for the purpose of unlawfully detaining them” and subjecting them to “cruel torture in a filthy, unsanitary Colombian prison.” Id. at 37. The Plaintiffs were incarcerated in the local Bucaramanga prison for six months. Id. at 38. The Plaintiffs were finally released upon the order of the Regional Prosecutor “who found the charges to be completely without merit.” Id. at 41. The Garcia Complaint essentially alleges the following cause of action: kidnapping, unlawful detention, torture, and crimes against humanity pursuant to the ATCA; torture pursuant to the TVPA; denial of the fundamental rights to associate and organize pursuant to the ATCA; arbitrary arrest and detention under Florida and Colombian law; false imprisonment under Florida and Colombian law; battery under Florida and Colombian law; assault under Florida and Colombian law; negligence under Florida and Colombian law; and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Florida and Colombian law. 4. The Leal Complaint Plaintiff Jorge Humberto Leal was an employee at Panamco Columbia’s Cucuta plant for over twenty years and a member of the Sinaltrainal union for approximately fifteen years. He was elected to the Claims Commission for the local union in the year 2000. Leal Compl. at ¶ 35. This commission hears complaints from the plant workers and seeks redress for these concerns from the employer. Id. On May 3, 2003, Plaintiff Leal presented petitions to the management of the bottling facility concerning wages and working conditions, including “security issues in light of the threats posed to them by the paramilitary forces in the region.” Id. at ¶36. In response, “the management at the Cucuta plant including Chief of Security Guillermo Galinda and manager of Human Resources Cesar Acuna began threatening employees with discharge and other reprisals if they joined or continued their membership.” Id. at ¶ 37. In addition, the management “intensified its campaign to discredit the union and its leaders by portraying them as dangerous subversives.” Id. When the company failed to respond to the union’s petitions, Plaintiff Leal and four other union leaders held a demonstration in front of the bottling facility in Cu-cuta on October 20, 2000. Later, on December 13, 2000 Leal was kidnapped by two unidentified individuals on his way home from work. Id. at ¶ 40. The two individuals drove him in a car for about an hour and a half, taking him to a building on the edge of a forest, somewhere on the outskirts of Cucuta. Id. The individuals proceeded to blindfold Plaintiff, bind his hands, and take him into a dark room. Id. A man who identified himself as being a member of the AUC paramilitary group entered the room. Id. That individual asked Leal if he was a member of the union, and of the executive board of the union. Id. After Leal answered affirmatively, his blindfold was removed and one of the individuals showed him a news clipping with a photo of Leal and four other union leaders protesting in front of the Cucuta bottling facility. Id. Leal was “threatened with death if he persisted in his union activities.” Id. Plaintiffs allege that “Leal was held captive by these unknown individuals for a 24-hour period, during which time he was physically and psychologically tortured.” Id. at 43. The two individuals who originally kidnapped Leal drove him to a neighboring town and released him. As a result of this incident, Leal “continues to live in fear for his life.” The Leal Complaint essentially alleges the following causes of action: kidnapping, unlawful detention, torture, and crimes against humanity pursuant to the ATCA; torture pursuant to the TVPA; denial of the fundamental rights to associate and organize pursuant to the ATCA; arbitrary arrest and detention under Florida and Colombian law; false imprisonment under Florida and Colombian law; battery under Florida and Colombian law; assault under Florida and Colombian law; negligence per se under Florida and Colombian law; and the intentional infliction of emotional distress under Florida and Colombian law. III. DISCUSSION OF THE ALIEN TORT CLAIMS ACT AND THE PROPER STANDARD FOR EVALUATING PLEADINGS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE INSTANT CASES The Alien Tort Claims Act, which is also referred to as the Alien Torts Statute, states in its entirety: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1350. The Eleventh Circuit has recently stated that “[t]o obtain relief under the [ATCA], plaintiffs must be (1) an alien, (2) suing for a tort, which was (3) committed in violation of international law.” Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc., 416 F.3d 1242, 1246 (11th Cir.2006) (citing Abebe-Jira v. Negewo, 72 F.3d 844, 848 (11th Cir.1996)). The Supreme Court has recently held that “although the ATS is a jurisdictional statute creating no new causes of action, the reasonable inference from the historical materials is that the statute was intended to have practical effect the moment it became law.” Sosa, 542 U.S. at 725, 124 S.Ct. 2739. The Supreme Court further explained that the ATCA provides a cause of action “for the modest number of international law violations with a potential for personal liability at the time [of its enactment].” Aldana, 416 F.3d at 1246 (quoting Sosa, 542 U.S. at 723, 124 S.Ct. 2739). Furthermore, “causes of action under the [ATCA] are not static; new ones may be recognized, if the claim is ‘based on the present-day law of nations to rest on a norm of international character accepted by the civilized world and defined with a specificity comparable to the features of the 18th century paradigms we have recognized.’ ” Id. (quoting Sosa, 542 U.S. at 725, 124 S.Ct. 2739). However, the Supreme Court has explained that federal courts should exercise “great caution” when considering new causes of action, and maintain “vigilant doorkeeping ... thus [opening the door] to a narrow class of international norms [recognized] today.” Id. (quoting Sosa, 542 U.S. at 728, 729, 124 S.Ct. 2739) (brackets added by the Eleventh Circuit). The Second Circuit’s decision in Filartiga v. Pena-Irala is considered the seminal case for the modern era of litigation under the ATCA. See Abebe-Jira, 72 F.3d at 846 (describing Filartiga as “[t]he leading case interpreting the Alien Tort Claims Act.”). In explaining the narrowing construction that has long been placed on the ATCA, the Second Circuit explained: “The paucity of suits successfully maintained under the section is readily attributable to the statute’s requirement of alleging a ‘violation of the law of nations’ at the jurisdictional threshold. Courts have, accordingly, engaged in a more searching preliminary review of the merits than is required, for example, under the more flexible ‘arising under’ formulation.” Filartiga, 630 F.2d at 887-88. Similarly, the Second Circuit later explained in Kadic v. Karadzic, another landmark decision, that “it is not a sufficient basis for jurisdiction to plead merely a colorable violation of the law of nations.” 70 F.3d 232, 238 (2nd Cir.1996). That Court further explained that “[t]here is no federal subject-matter jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Act unless the complaint adequately pleads a violation of the law of nations (or treaty of the United States).” Id. Furthermore, it bears emphasis that there are very few instances in which private conduct can constitute a violation of the law of nations. The Second Circuit explained that “Torture and summary execution-when not perpetrated in the course of genocide or war crimes-are proscribed by international law only when committed by state officials or under color of law.” Kadic, 70 F.3d at 234. However, “a claim for state-sponsored torture under the Alien Tort Act or the Torture Victim Protection Act may be based on indirect liability as well as direct liability.” Aldana, 416 F.3d at 1247 (citing Cabello v. Fernandez-Larios, 402 F.3d 1148, 1157 (11th Cir.2005)). The Alien Tort Claims Act “ ‘reaches conspiracies and accomplice liability,’ and the Torture Victim Protection Act reaches those who ordered, abetted, or assisted in the wrongful act.” Id. In construing this state action requirement, the Eleventh Circuit looks “to the principles of agency law and to jurisprudence under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Id. (citing Radio, 70 F.3d at 245). Notably, a panel of the Eleventh Circuit considered allegations very similar to those of the instant cases in Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc. 416 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir.2005). That case involved violence and intimidation against labor union leaders who worked on a banana plantation in Guatemala. Significantly, like the instant cases, the Aldana complaint relied on theories of vicarious liability. The plaintiffs in that case asserted claims of torture, unlawful detention, crimes against humanity, and denial of the fundamental right to associate and organize under the ATCA and TVPA. Rather than suing the individuals who physically perpetrated the violent acts and threats on trade unionists, the Aldana plaintiffs sued the corporate entity that owned the banana plantation where the plaintiffs worked as well as its Guatemalan subsidiary. The Plaintiffs “rest[ed] responsibility for these acts upon a theory of joint action between Defendants and the local officials.” Id. at 1291. The district court in Aldana granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim because the complaint did not adequately plead violations of international law. Id. at 1292-1300. It explained that with respect to the third element, the requirement that the tort was committed in violation of international law, the complaint must identify the specific international law that the defendant allegedly violated. The district court adopted a higher standard of pleading than is traditionally required to survive a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss: “The heightened pleading standard requires that the complaint identify facts showing Defendants violated a specific international law.” Id. at 1292 (citing Sinaltrainal, 256 F.Supp.2d at 1345, 1352 (S.D.Fla.2003)). Notably, the general gravamen of the allegations in Aldana with regard to state action reflected the same legal theories of those in the instant cases: This case presents a somewhat unusual issue of state action in the ATCA context. In most cases filed against corporations, the corporation is accused of complicity in what are clearly actions taken by state entities. Here, the issue is somewhat confusing, as both the official conduct component to properly ascribe state action and the actual participation of the corporate Defendants is unclear. Aldana, 305 F.Supp.2d at 1301. Thus, the district court first considered whether there was official conduct that created state’ action in the first place. Second, the district considered whether the corporate Defendants could be found liable under the joint action variant of the “color of law” jurisprudence. Id. Although the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court, the Eleventh Circuit panel did not address the district court’s finding that a heightened standard of pleading applied, nor did the panel explicitly discuss the application of Federal Rule of Civil Proee-dure 12(b)(1) to the complaint. The district court’s order in the Aldana case was entitled “Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction,” id. at 1288, and it emphasized that the ATCA requires a more searching review of the merits to establish jurisdiction and survive a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. See id. at 1292. The Eleventh Circuit made no mention of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). See generally, Aldana, 416 F.3d 1242. While the Eleventh Circuit did cite from a body of case law discussing motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), it did not explain whether this analysis had any bearing on the district court’s 12(b)(1) analysis. See Aldana, 416 F.3d at 1246 (citing Chepstow Ltd. v. Hunt, 381 F.3d 1077, 1080 (11th Cir.2004); Oxford Asset Mgmt., Ltd. v. Jaharis, 297 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir.2002)). The Eleventh Circuit panel in Aldana did not expressly discuss the district court’s finding that a heightened pleading standard did apply, but it emphasized that “[s]ome minimal pleading standard does exist,” and that “ ‘[pjleadings must be something more than an ingenious academic exercise in the conceivable.’ ” Aldana, 416 F.3d at 1248 (citing Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Indus. Am. Corp., 289 F.3d 1268, 1270 (11th Cir.2002) (discussing generally what might be a reasonable inference in the pleading context) (internal citation omitted) rev’d en banc on other grounds, 314 F.3d 541 (11th Cir.2002)). Similarly, in closing, the Eleventh Circuit panel stated: We commend the district court for remembering that some minimal pleading standard does still exist and for that court’s serious and thorough examination of the complaint. We affirm the district court’s order dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint entirely, except we vacate the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims-under the Alien Tort Act and the Torture Victim Protection Act-for alleged torture based on intentionally inflicted mental pain and suffering. Aldana, 416 F.3d at 1253 (emphasis added). Thus, the Eleventh Circuit’s Aldana decision leaves some uncertainty as to what the proper pleading standard is in the context of an ATCA case that relies on theories of vicarious liability, contains allegations of attenuated connections between the tortfeasors and the defendants, and requires a showing of state action as to many of the alleged violations of customary international law. In particular, merely conclusory allegations regarding state action cannot satisfy a plaintiffs burden under the ATCA. Aldana, 3.05 F.Supp.2d at 1301 (citing Beanal v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc., 197 F.3d 161, 165-169 (5th Cir.1999) (affirming dismissal of complaint asserting claims under the ATCA and TVPA for lack of specificity)). The Eleventh Circuit’s decision also does not specify the extent to which the 12(b)(1) analysis in the context of an ATCA claim overlaps with that of a 12(b)(6) analysis, which seems especially significant in light of the fact that the Supreme Court has recently clarified that the ATCA is ultimately a jurisdictional statute. Arguably, the distinction between the 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) standards may be somewhat blurred in the context of an ATCA case. One leading treatise notes that, as a practical matter, the difference between a Rule 12(b)(6) and a 12(b)(1) motion “is often difficult to discern.” 5B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1350 (3d ed.2006); see also Flores v. Southern Peru Copper, 414 F.3d 233 (2d. Cir.2003) (combining subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state claim analysis in dismissing Alien Tort Claims Act suit on both 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1) grounds alleging that pollution from mining company’s Peruvian operations had caused severe lung disease). In Williamson v. Tucker the former Fifth Circuit provided an extensive analysis of the proper standards to be applied under a 12(b)(1) analysis. 645 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. May 20, 1981). The court explained that under a facial attack to subject matter jurisdiction: “A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Rule 12(b)(1), can be based on the lack of jurisdiction on the face of the complaint. If so, the plaintiff is left with safeguards similar to those retained when a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is raised-the court must consider the allegations in the plaintiffs complaint as true.” Id. at 412. The Fifth Circuit panel also observed that “[t]he Supreme Court has enunciated a strict standard for dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the basis of jurisdiction is also an element in the plaintiffs federal cause of action.” Id. at 405. (citing Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946) (involving an implied right of action under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments)). In Bell v. Hood, the Supreme Court explained: Jurisdiction, therefore, is not defeated as respondents seem to contend, by the possibility that the averments might fail to state a cause of action on which petitioners could actually recover. For it is well settled that the failure to state a proper cause of action calls for a judgment on the merits and not for a dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Whether the complaint states a cause of action on which relief could be granted is a question of law and just as questions of fact it must be decided after and not before the court has assumed jurisdiction over the controversy. If the court does later exercise its jurisdiction to determine that the allegations in the complaint do not state a ground for relief, then dismissal of the case would be on the merits, not for want of jurisdiction .... The previously carved out exceptions are that a suit may sometimes be dismissed for want of jurisdiction where the alleged claim under the Constitution or federal statutes clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous. The accuracy of calling these dismissals jurisdictional has been questioned. 327 U.S. at 682, 66 S.Ct. 773. However, this Court finds it notable that the Second Circuit’s decision in Filartiga specifically contrasted the Supreme Court’s “more searching preliminary review of the merits” in O’Reilly De Camara v. Brooke, 209 U.S. 45, 52, 28 S.Ct. 439, 52 L.Ed. 676 (1908) (disposing of a question of ATCA jurisdiction disposed of “on the merits”), with the Supreme Court’s less searching review of the merits in Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946) (holding that general federal question jurisdiction was not defeated by the possibility that the averments in the complaint may fail to state a cause of action). Thus, it appears that the ability of a plaintiff to state a claim under the ATCA, a jurisdictional statute, has some bearing on the process of determining whether subject matter jurisdiction exists for 12(b)(1) purposes. As noted supra, the Second Circuit in Kadic noted that “it is not a sufficient basis for jurisdiction to plead merely a colorable violation of the law of nations.” 70 F.3d at 238 (emphasis added). “There is no federal subject-matter jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Act unless the complaint adequately pleads a violation of the law of nations (or treaty of the United States).” Id. (emphasis added). Furthermore, in advocating the necessity of some heightened pleading standard in the instant cases, the Defendants focus on the importance of the allegations of a conspiracy between paramilitaries and the Defendants in this case in order to link the Defendants to the paramilitaries and demonstrate that Defendant’s action were pursuant to color of law. Defendants argue that the Eleventh Circuit requires a “stringent standard” for pleading conspiracy, and they emphasize language in Fullman v. Graddick: In civil rights and conspiracy actions, courts have recognized that more than mere conclusory notice pleading is required. In civil rights actions, it has been held that a complaint will be dismissed as insufficient where the allegations it contains are vague and coneluso-ry. In conspiracy cases, a defendant must be informed of the nature of the conspiracy which is alleged. It is not enough to simply aver in the complaint that a conspiracy existed. A complaint may justifiably be dismissed because of the conclusory, vague and general nature of the allegations of conspiracy. 739 F.2d 553, 556-57 (11th Cir.1984). The Eleventh Circuit’s Aldana decision did not specifically address the ramifications of conspiracy precedent in the context of establishing vicarious liability under the ATCA. The Eleventh Circuit panel found that a reasonable reading of the plaintiffs complaint sufficiently established affirmative state action. Aldana, 416 F.3d at 1249-50. Specifically, the court observed that a “favorable construction of the complaint [for the plaintiffs] is that the Mayor was one of the armed aggressors who intimidated the plaintiffs.” Id. at 1249. Thus, the Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs had sufficiently established state action through direct theories of liability, and it did not address theories that the Mayor’s inaction facilitated and cause the harm. Id. at 1250. Perhaps most notably, the Eleventh Circuit panel decision contained no discussion of whether the complaint sufficiently alleged joint action under color of law to extend vicarious liability to the defendant corporate entities. See Aldana, 305 F.Supp.2d 1285 at 1304-05 (discussing joint action- theories of vicarious liability under color of law jurisprudence and finding plaintiffs allegations insufficient to extend vicarious liability under “any ‘color of law’ analysis.”) Indeed, in the instant cases, much like the Aldana case, it is the allegations regarding the attenuated relationship between the corporate entities and the alleged direct tortfeasors that are the most bare-boned and conclusory. This Court recognizes that some courts have called into question the viability of the Eleventh Circuit’s holdings that heightened pleading standards apply in the context of certain types of cases. See, e.g., Ross v. State of Ala., 15 F.Supp.2d 1173, 1191 n. 10 (M.D.Ala., 1998); Arrington v. Dickerson, 915 F.Supp. 1503, 1512-13 (M.D.Ala.1995). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has observed that “our cases demonstrate that questions regarding pleading, discovery, and summary judgment are most frequently and most effectively resolved either by the rulemaking process or the legislative process.” Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 596, 118 S.Ct. 1584, 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998) (citing Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168-69, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993)). Nevertheless, it appears that the heightened pleading standard in the context of certain cases, including some 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cases, is still the law of this Circuit. See Maldonado v. Snead, 168 Fed.Appx. 373, 379 (11th Cir.2006) (citing Fullman, 739 F.2d at 556-57); Ross v. State of Ala., 15 F.Supp.2d at 1191 (same). It should be emphasized that in determining whether the actions of a defendant under the ATCA embody sufficient connection with state action in order to afford subject matter jurisdiction, courts often turn to the “color of law” cases under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After careful deliberation, this Court concludes that it is appropriate to require some heightened pleading standard when determining whether the complaints in the instant cases sufficiently plead facts showing that Defendants violated the law of nations. Thus, this Court must engage in a searching review, particularly with regard to allegations concerning conspiracy or joint action that purport to establish that the Defendants acted under the color of official authority. See, Aldana, 305 F.Supp.2d at 1301; Beanal v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc., 197 F.3d 161, 165-69 (5th Cir.1999) (affirming dismissal of complaint asserting claims under the ATCA and TVPA for lack of specificity). After carefully reviewing the Complaints, this Court concludes that the allegations are too con-elusory and lack sufficient specificity. As is discussed further infra, the Complaints plead only “a merely colorable violation of the law of nations” which is not a sufficient basis for subject matter jurisdiction. See Kadic, 70 F.3d at 238. IV. DISCUSSION OF ATCA JURISDICTION IN THE INSTANT CASES A. Universal Offenses that Do Not Require State Action Plaintiffs argue that the paramilitary acts that constitute war crimes, including summary execution, torture, and unlawful detention, do not require a showing of state action. See (D.E. No. 57 at 14). As a general principle of law, they are correct. Indeed, in the Kadic decision the Second Circuit held that private actors, as opposed to state actors, may be liable for a “handful” of offenses of universal concern, including war crimes. See Kadic, 70 F.3d at 240. However, Plaintiffs make only veiled references to war crimes in their complaints. For example, the Leal Complaint notes that “noncombatants to the Colombian civil war, including Plaintiffs herein, are protected from human rights violations and other war crimes committed by any parties to the conflict, regardless of whether the combatant parties are formally recognized as government units.” Leal Compl. at ¶ 28. As the Defendants emphasize, Kadic defined war crimes as “the acts of murder, rape, torture, and arbitrary detention of civilians, committed in the course of hostilities .... ” Kadic, 70 F.3d at 242. (emphasis added). Plaintiffs fail to adequately allege facts to support this definition. The Sinaltrainal complaints do not assert that the alleged offenses were acts of war committed by combatants in the course of hostilities. As Defendants emphasize, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants’ agents committed the “tortious actions ... in connection with and in furtherance of Coke’s business interests and activities,” rather than in furtherance of war hostilities. See, e.g., Garcia Compl. at ¶¶ 25, 35; Leal Compl. at ¶¶ 25, 44. (emphasis added). Similarly, in the Garcia case, the absence of allegations regarding any war crimes is more apparent. Plaintiffs allege that the Plaintiffs were incarcerated by local police officers in Bucaramanga due to false bomb allegations. Plaintiffs do not allege that this act had anything to do with paramilitary actions or other combatants involved in the Colombian civil war. In' their opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis of subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiffs skirt the issue of whether the alleged tortious acts were committed in furtherance of war hostilities. Plaintiffs point to paragraphs of their complaints that establish general allegations about the state of civil war in Colombia, as well as to allegations about the nature of the acts that were purportedly committed, yet they fail to identify any allegations that the acts were committed in furtherance of war hostilities. (D.E. No. 57 at 15). Furthermore, this Court finds Plaintiffs attempts to draw parallels between the facts of Kadic and the instant cases to be misplaced. Plaintiffs opposition memorandum argues, attempting to track language of Kadic, that Plaintiffs are “noncombatant victims” of paramilitary combatants that are a roving horde of state sponsored insurgents. See (D.E. No. 57 at 15-16). However, this Court notes that the defendant in Kadic was the commander that had “ultimate command authority” over the Bosnian-Serb Military forces as a part of a genocidal campaign conducted in the course of the Bosnian civil war. 70 F.3d at 236-37. Furthermore, the Second Circuit emphasized that in order to establish war crimes the alleged torts must have been “committed in the course of an armed conflict.” Id. at 244. As this Court has previously noted, the gravamen of Plaintiffs’ Complaint is that the paramilitaries were working as agents of the corporations doing business in Colombia. See, e.g., Leal Compl. at ¶ 2. Furthermore, the Complaints allege that these act were taken “in connection with and in furtherance of [Defendants’] business interests and activities.” Garcia Compl. at ¶ 25, 35; see also Galvis Compl. at 60. This Court notes that the failure of the Complaints to allege that the actions of the paramilitaries were in the course of hostilities was squarely addressed at oral argument before then-presiding Judge Huck. Transcript of Oral Argument on June 6, 2002 at 80-92. Judge Huck granted leave to amend the complaints by interlineation regarding the knowledge of Defendants regarding the paramilitaries practice of targeting trade union leaders. Id. at 90-93. As a result, the Plaintiffs submitted a motion to supplement the Complaints (D.E. No. 83), which this Court granted (D.E. No. 102). The amendments to each of the Complaints contained almost identical language: Coca-Cola Colombia, and by virtue of its alter ego and/or agency relationship with Coca-Cola, Colombia, Coca-Cola, along with Defendants Panamco and Pa-namco Colombia, acting through their alter egos, agents and/or employees, who knew that the paramilitaries in Colombia, combatants in the civil war, enthusiastically target trade union leaders for execution and torture, affirmatively acted to benefit from the civil war by making arrangements to have the paramilitaries target their union leaders. Plaintiffs, non-combatants in the civil war, were thus targeted for violence to further Defendants’ business interest in becoming union-free, and the paramilitaries, acting on behalf of Defendants, were able to use violence to accomplish this end with impunity because there is a raging civil war that creates a lawless environment. (D.E. No. 83). These general allegations that Defendants took advantage of a civil war to further their business interest seem a far cry from the universal offenses in Kadic, where the defendant was alleged to possess “ultimate command authority” and where he was alleged to have “personally planned and ordered a campaign of murder, rape, forced impregnation, and other forms of torture designed to destroy the religious and ethnic groups of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats.” 70 F.3d at 237, 243. The Second Circuit, in discussing war crimes, emphasized that international law “imposes an affirmative duty on military commanders to take appropriate measure within their power to control troops under their command for the prevention of such atrocities.” Id. at 243. Furthermore, the Second Circuit has also held that “indirect economic benefit from unlawful state action is not sufficient to support jurisdiction over a private party under the Alien Tort Claims Act.” Bigio v. Coca-Cola, 239 F.3d 440, 449 (2d. Cir.2000). The Defendants in the instant case fail to specifically identify sources of international law which afford the Defendants any similar affirmative duty for a private corporation to prevent the atrocities alleged in the Complaints. Alleging that the Defendants “affirmatively acted to benefit from the civil war by making arrangements to have the paramilitaries target their union leaders” is a far cry from alleging that Defendants actually conspired with the paramilitaries to orchestrate hostilities. This Court emphasizes that Plaintiffs are not bringing claims against any paramilitary commander or paramilitary member. Rather, Plaintiffs seek to hold corporations accountable for the actions of their “agents and/or employees.” This Court respectfully submits that Plaintiffs seek a dramatic expansion of ATCA jurisprudence, one which lacks support in either domestic or international law. As a result, this Court finds that in the context of the instant complaints, some modicum of specificity regarding the details of affirmative action, whether it be in the form of conspiracy or joint action to orchestrate hostilities, is required to adequately plead a violation of the law of nations on the basis of war crimes or genocide. Furthermore, this Court finds that Plaintiffs must plead specific facts that demonstrate that the affirmative actions were within the scope of the employee relationship, as opposed to acts of a rouge employee. A thorough analysis of the operative complaints, and indeed of the proposed amended complaints, demonstrates that Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead facts that could give rise to either war crimes, genocide, or crimes against humanity under the necessarily heightened pleading standard required under the ATCA. However, in an abundance of caution, this Court also finds that under any pleading standard, Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged facts that could give rise to subject matter jurisdiction for war crimes, genocide, or crimes against humanity. Rather, Plaintiffs Complaints are rife with legal conclusions, which this Court need not accept as well-pleaded. Aldana, 416 F.3d at 1246 (“eonclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal.”); Solis-Ramirez v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 758 F.2d 1426, 1429 (11th Cir.1985) (court not required to accept conclusions of law on a motion to dismiss). Thus, this Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of war crimes or crimes against humanity. B. Violations of International Law that Require State Action Because this Court has found that Defendants have failed to adequately plead a universal offense that affords subject matter jurisdiction over private actors, this Court now considers whether Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged state action. Sufficiently alleging that a defendant’s conduct is under the color of official authority is a crucial component of a claim under either the ATCA or the TVPA. Aldana, 305 F.Supp.2d 1285. In terms of the ATCA, “torture and summary exeeution-when not perpetrated in the course of genocide or war crimes-are proscribed by international law only when committed by state officials or under color of law.” Kadic, 70 F.3d at 234. To meet the “color of law” requirements under the ATCA, “the challenged conduct must be attributable to the state, in other words, it must be official conduct.” Beanal v. Freeport-McMoRan, Inc., 969 F.Supp. 362, 374 (E.D.La.1997). 1. Novel Issues Relating to the Relationship of Color of Law Jurisprudence in the Context of the ATCA with a Highly Attenuated Relationship between Defendants and State Action This Court submits that this case presents issues of first impression regarding theories of imputing state action. In most ATCA cases filed against corporations, the corporation is accused of complicity in what are clearly actions taken by state entities. Aldana, 305 F.Supp.2d at 1301(citing Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., 244 F.Supp.2d 289 (S.D.N.Y.2003)). Here, each of the Defendants is a private corporation or an individual, as opposed to a state representative or affiliate. As Defendants correctly note, nothing in the instant complaints demonstrates that Defendants’ alleged acts “may be fairly treated as [those] of the state itself.” (D.E. No. 54 at 13) (quoting Beanal, 969 F.Supp. at 377). Thus, Plaintiffs must sufficiently allege that Defendants acted under “color of law” in order to sustain their ATCA claim. However, the Defendants in the instant cases are at least two levels removed from the Colombian government. Thus, Plaintiffs must sufficiently allege facts that sufficiently demonstrate: 1) that the Defendants are vicariously liable for the paramilitaries’ actions, and 2) that the paramilitaries in question were sufficiently connected to the Colombian government so that they may be said to have acted “under color of law.” For the reasons discussed infra, this Court concludes that the allegations are legally insufficient to impute liability for the paramilitaries’ (or the police officers’) action to the Defendants. First, this Court emphasizes that Defendant makes a persuasive argument that Plaintiffs seek a dramatic expansion of ATCA jurisdiction. A careful review of existing case law indicates that no other federal cases have found subject matter jurisdiction with such an attenuated connection between defendants and state action, i.e. the tenuous connection between Defendants and the paramilitaries coupled with a murky relationship between the paramilitaries and the Colombian government. Notably, the Eleventh Circuit’s recent panel decision in Aldana turned on the court’s finding that the plaintiffs in that case had sufficiently alleged direct state action, that the mayor was not just physically present when the unruly mob abducted the plaintiffs at gunpoint, but that he was a participant. Aldana, 416 F.3d at 1249-50. Although the Eleventh Circuit made clear that “by their terms, the ATCA and the TVPA are not limited to claims of direct liability,” that ease involved an appeal from a jury verdict finding a Chilean military officer liable for the brutal stabbing of an economist during the “Caravan of Death” that followed a military coup. See Cabello, 402 F.3d at 1158. In the instant case, there are no conceivable allegations of direct state action. Underpinning the instant litigation is Plaintiffs’ novel legal theory that the “color of law” may be bridged between the paramilitaries and the state of Colombia, and in turn between the paramilitaries and the agents or employees of Defendants. This Court is unable to find any federal appellate decision that squarely addresses the viability of this legal theory. Reluctantly, this Court finds that Plaintiffs’ legal theory is a viable one. However, as is discussed infra, the Plaintiffs’ allegations fail to plead facts that sufficiently demonstrate the necessary relationship between the Defendants and the paramilitaries so that state action may imputed to the Defendants in order to demonstrate more than a merely colorable violation of the law of nations. 2. Color of Law Jurisprudence in the Context of ATCA In construing the state action requirement, the Eleventh Circuit has made clear that it is the law of this Circuit to look “to the principles of agency law and to jurisprudence under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Aldana, 416 F.3d at 1247-48. The Supreme Court has articulated four tests to determine whether private conduct constitutes state action: 1) the “nexus test;” 2) the “symbiotic relationship test;” 3) the “joint action test;” and 4) the “public function test.” See Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assoc., 531 U.S. 288, 296, 121 S.Ct. 924, 148 L.Ed.2d 807 (2001); Gallagher v. Neil Young Freedom Concert, 49 F.3d 1442, 1447 (10th Cir.1995). However, this Court emphasizes that most of the jurisprudence involving the ATCA involves a more direct relationship between state actors and the defendants in question. This Court finds that it is appropriate to compartmentalize the analysis by first evaluating the relationship between the Defendants and the paramilitaries, and then, if necessary, the relationship between the paramilitaries and the government of Colombia. This Court notes that Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (D.E. No. 54) focuses the analysis of the four state action tests on the relationship between the paramilitaries and the government of Colombia. In analyzing the relationship between Defendants and the paramilitaries (or police officers in the Garcia case), Defendants argue that Plaintiffs must allege facts, under a heightened pleading standard, that sufficiently demonstrate that paramilitaries were either: 1) acting as Defendants’ agents, or 2) acting pursuant to a conspiracy with the Defendants. (D.E. No. 54 at 13-14). While this Court agrees that this analytical approach is a sound one, this Court notes that it seems that the analytical approach Defendants advocate fits most squarely in category of the “joint action test.” Indeed, the district court in Aldana noted that “[traditionally, either a conspiracy or ‘willful participation’ with the state actor will satisfy the ‘joint action’ test.’ ” 305 F.Supp.2d at 1304 (citing National Coalition Gov’t of the Union of Burma v. Unocal, 176 F.R.D. 329, 346 (C.D.Cal.1997); Collins v. Womancare, 878 F.2d 1145, 1150 (9th Cir.1989)). This Court finds that the “nexus test;” “symbiotic relationship test;” or the “public function test,” which may have some bearing on the relationship between the paramilitaries and the Colombian government, are not applicable to the alleged relationship between the Defendants and the paramilitaries. Plaintiffs argue that a “substantial degree of cooperative action between the state and private actors,” which need not amount to private actors and state actors acting in concert, should suffice. (D.E. No. 57 at 20) (citing Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., Case No. 96 CIV 8386(KMW), 2002 WL 319887, *13 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2002)). However, this Court finds that the Wiwa case is distinguishable. The district court in Wiwa declined to dismiss ATCA claims based on allegations that Royal Dutch Petroluem Co. and its subsidiaries recruited N