Mochizuki v. United States

43 Fed. Cl. 97, 1999 U.S. Claims LEXIS 31, 1999 WL 72777
CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims
DecidedJanuary 25, 1999
DocketNo. 97-294C
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 43 Fed. Cl. 97 (Mochizuki v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Federal Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mochizuki v. United States, 43 Fed. Cl. 97, 1999 U.S. Claims LEXIS 31, 1999 WL 72777 (uscfc 1999).

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER

SMITH, Chief Judge.

The court approves the settlement of this case based upon the moving and eloquent testimony of several of the class members as well as plaintiffs’ fine lawyers. The court believes those class members’ statements provide valuable insight into the tragic experiences of Latin Americans of Japanese descent who were interned here during World War II. Accordingly the court has decided to append copies of their statements to this order so that their account of those trying times can be more widely known.

No settlement is ever perfect. No compensation is ever equivalent to a serious human loss. Who among us would ever trade our eyes or legs for $5,000 or $20,000 or a hundred times that much? Money damages can never undo the loss of life, false imprisonment or the passage of years. Money, however, is the medium which the law must use as it seeks to right wrongs. It must use this medium with the full recognition that it is never truly adequate.

The Twentieth Century has seen untold human suffering wrought by the hands of human beings. The World War out of which this case came was perhaps a pinnacle of mankind’s ability to inflict evil upon fellow human beings. I hope we never reach that level again. The statute enacted by the Congress to compensate Americans of Japanese descent was not perfect, however it was a highly moral action. It was an attempt to right a wrong. As such it marks an important milestone in the long road toward decent and civilized life. Few governments over the millennia have even acknowledged past evil, let alone made serious efforts to correct it. We can be very proud of this country for doing so.

Thus, while the wrong is far from perfectly assuaged, the court must acknowledge this as a fair settlement. The plaintiffs asked for the court’s help in ensuring additional funding for the settlement. This is beyond the court’s constitutional power. However, the court hopes that the Congress and the President will give due consideration to fully funding the settlement so that all identified class members’ may be paid the modest amount that will serve as a symbol of restitution rather than actual monetary damages. The court must also commend the attorneys and administrative officials of the United States Department of Justice who have worked hard and diligently to handle this settlement and other aspects of the whole claims process.

[98]*98Upon consideration of the proceedings heretofore conducted in this case and a hearing having been held to determine the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the Settlement Agreement executed by the parties on June 10, 1998, it is by this court hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:

1. Pursuant to RCFC 23, the court determines that it is in the interest of justice to certify a class consisting of:

Persons who have not previously received payments under the Civil Liberties Act of 1998 from the Office of Redress Administration, United States Department of Justice, and who are (a) persons of Japanese ancestry who were living in Latin America before World War II and who were interned in the United States at any time during the period from December 7, 1941, to June 30, 1946; or (b) persons who are the spouses, children or parents of persons who died after August 10, 1988, and who met the qualifications of (a) above.

Persons who have timely opted out of the class are not included as class members. The court further determines that, for the purposes of settlement, certification of this class is appropriate due to the number of potential class members, the predominance of common questions over questions affecting individual class members, the expiration of the statutory program at issue in this case, and the fact that the current plaintiffs and their attorneys are adequate representatives of the class.

2. The Settlement Agreement executed by the parties on June 10, 1998, is adjudged to be fair, reasonable, and adequate, and its terms are hereby approved.

3. The Second Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

4. The court shall retain jurisdiction of this action for a period of 180 days after entry of this order and judgment solely for the purpose of adjudicating any claim of a material breach of the Settlement Agreement.

5. In accordance with this order, judgment is hereby entered approving the settlement as proposed in all respects and dismiss-

ing the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

APPENDIX

consisting of the declarations of Carmen Mochizuki, Kazuo Matsubayashi, Rose A. Nishimura, Saduharu Saka-moto, and Grace Shimizu regarding the reaction of members of the class to the Settlement Agreement.

Declaration of Carmen Mochizuki

I, Carmen Mochizuki, have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein. If called to testify, I could and would competently testify as follows:

1. My name is Carmen Higa Mochizuki. I am one of the named plaintiffs in this lawsuit, Mochizuki, et al. v. U.S.. I appreciate the chance to let Chief Judge Smith know how I feel about the agreement, why I agreed to it, and what my concerns are today.

2. I was born on December 9, 1932 in Callao, Peru. My parents, Rensuke and Ka-mado Higa, raised me along with my nine brothers and sisters on a large farm. I am now 67 years old and use my husband’s surname.

2. During World War II, in March, 1944, my family and I were abducted and forcibly removed from Peru and taken to Crystal City, Texas where we lived for almost two years in an internment camp.

3. In Peru, my father had been a successful farmer. He was well respected as an accomplished horseman and was a leader in the community. I am informed and believe that it was because of my father’s leadership in the community, that he was targeted for arrest by the United States and the Peruvian governments.

4. I was 11 years old at that time. The Peruvian police came to my school and demanded that I take them to my father. They walked with me to my home and I told them that I would have to go around to the back of the house to open the door. I warned my father who then escaped out a back window.

[99]*995. He evaded arrest for one year, but when he was threatened with life imprisonment with no contact with his family, he turned himself in to the F.B.I. The government took control of all of the family’s assets. We lost everything. We were shipped to Crystal City internment camp. I remember in New Orleans, after we got off the ship, how embarassed I felt as a little girl when they made my mother and the children remove all of our clothing so that they could spray us with some insecticide.

6. In December, 1945, after the war ended, the family was deported to war-devastated Japan. The family nearly starved. In order to get a pound of sweet potatoes or a pound of rice, we exchanged a pair of shoes or a dress.

7. My parents are the ones who suffered so much, but now they are gone. My father died in Okinawa a few years after the war’s end. He was only 63 years old. My mother must have felt so helpless not being able to explain the suffering that we were going through. I feel so sorry when I think of my parents, and I’ll feel that until I die. I eventually returned to the U.S. and married a U.S. citizen.

8.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Binyam Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.
614 F.3d 1070 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Shibayama v. United States
55 Fed. Cl. 720 (Federal Claims, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 Fed. Cl. 97, 1999 U.S. Claims LEXIS 31, 1999 WL 72777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mochizuki-v-united-states-uscfc-1999.