NATURE OF ACTION, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Defendant SIEMENS AG conspired with the Nazi Regime and with certain other German Industrial entities and/or financial institutions (whose identities are not yet specifically identifies but which are described herein as CORPORATE DOES # 1 - 100) and other un-named German Industrial entities and/or financial institutions to use Holocaust victims as slave/forced laborers, and illicitly profited from such slave/forced labor. The use of slave/forced labor by the Nazis and Defendants was part and parcel of Nazi genocidal activities now referred to as the "HOLOCAUST". Plaintiff and the plaintiff class are Holocaust victims who were forced into slave/forced labor by Defendants individually and/or as co-conspirators with other German business entities, financial institutions and/or the Nazis. Plaintiffs seek an accounting, constructive trust, restitution, disgorgement and compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the Defendants' continuing wrongful conduct as described below.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter based on the following: (a) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, specifically the Alien Tort Claims Act, in that named Plaintiffs are not citizens of the United States who as aliens may bring an action against these defendant(s) which are citizens of Germany and/or the United States but which do business in the United States and where the plaintiffs' are asserting claims against these defendants under federal common law which incorporates customary international law and international treaties, as well as under the Torture Victim Protection Act; (b) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 in that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 per plaintiff exclusive of interest and costs; and (c) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction of claims by members of the Plaintiff class who are not citizens of the United States and whose claims do not exceed $75,000.00.

3. Venue is proper in this Court since the Defendants do business and may be found in this District within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), and, as aliens may be sued in any district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 (d).

4. Plaintiff HONORATA CHMIELEWSKA is a Polish citizen, born on January 4, 1929. In or about September 1944, the Warsaw Ghetto uprising occurred. At that time, plaintiff CHMIELEWSKA, who was only 15, was "arrested" sent to the Ravensbruck concentration camp. Plaintiff WOZNIAK was a slave/forced laborer while at the Ravensbruck concentration camp. From September 1944 through the end of the war, plaintiff CHMIELEWSKA was a slave/forced laborer at a nearby SIEMENS factory. At the SIEMENS factory, plaintiff CHMIELEWSKA worked as a slave/forced laborer during manual labor. The workshift was 12 hours per day, 7 days per week. The conditions were very bad. There was not enough food. Plaintiff CHMIELEWSKA never received payment of any kind for her slave/forced labor. Plaintiff CHMIELEWSKA was a slave/forced laborer for defendant SIEMENS for about 9 months until she was liberated in May 1945. Plaintiff CHMIELEWSKA observed the guards, who were both in uniform and in civilian clothes, and who beat, tortured, threatened and executed workers for failure to work fast enough or just to set an example to scare other workers to work faster. Plaintiff CHMIELEWSKA was liberated on May 3, 1945 and returned to Poland where she has lived ever since.

DEFENDANTS

5. Defendant SIEMENS and the other known and unknown defendants, requisitioned, used and profited from slave/forced labor during World War II, including the labor of the named Plaintiff, and other members of the Plaintiff class, deceased family members and other Holocaust victims as described above. Defendants profited from the use of slave/forced labor and have retained the benefits and use of those profits and the products of that slave/forced labor since World War II. Defendants conspired with the Nazis to use the labor of the plaintiff and the plaintiff class and subject Plaintiff and the plaintiff class to physical and mental abuse. Defendants knew that the slave/forced labor system was a component of the Nazi genocidal program. Defendants were therefore active participants in the Holocaust.

6. Defendant SIEMENS AG ("SIEMENS") is a business organized and incorporated under the laws of Germany and the United States, with principal places of business in Munich, Germany and New York, NY. SIEMENS and its affiliates, subsidiaries, and/or alter egos conduct extensive business in the United States and have offices in Woodbury and New York, New York, as well as California, Wisconsin, Michigan, Virginia, Georgia, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, North Carolina, Washington, Florida, Ohio, Texas, Indiana, and elsewhere around the world. On information and belief, SIEMENS has had continuous systemic business transactions in New York.

7. Defendants Corporate Does Nos. 1-100 are other German Companies, both industrial, manufacturing, electronic, financial and other enterprises that, like the named Defendant, its/their predecessors, affiliates and/or assigns conspired with the Nazi Regime to use Holocaust victims as slave/forced laborers and illicitly profited from such forced labor. The designation Corporate Does Nos. 1-100 is used until such time as the specific identity of such additional companies, as they relate to this action, is ascertained through discovery and/or other means.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

8. This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a class action pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(1) (1) - (4) and 23 (b) (1), 23 (b) (2) and 23 (b) (3). Plaintiff seeks certification of the following class: all targets of Nazi persecution, and their heirs alive and dead, who were forced by Defendants to perform slave/forced labor during the Holocaust.

9. The exact number of Plaintiff class members is not known. Plaintiff estimates that the class includes tens of thousands of Holocaust survivors and their heirs, alive and dead, and the Plaintiff estimates that the class is so numerous that joinder of individual members is impracticable. The number and identities of the class members can only be ascertained through appropriate investigation and discovery.

10. Questions of fact and law are common with respect to each class member. Common questions of fact and law include:

a. Whether Defendants knowingly, intentionally and systematically requested used slave/forced labor;

b. Whether Defendants wrongly converted, to their own use and for their own benefit, the slave/forced labor and services of Plaintiff and the Plaintiff class, as well as the products and profits for such slave/forced labor;

c. Whether Defendants knew or should have known that they were assisting and/or acting as accomplices and collaborating with the Nazis in implementing the Holocaust;

d. Whether Defendants knowingly assisted the Nazi Regime in prolonging and enhancing the Nazi war effort and systemic persecution, torture and extermination of Holocaust victims by enslaving Holocaust victims and profiting from slave/forced labor;

e. Whether Defendants conspired with the Nazi Regime and knowingly concealed information about the Defendants wrongdoing during and after the Holocaust, and/or knowingly retained slave/forced labor profits and/or benefits;

f. Whether Defendants have been unjustly enriched by their wrongful conduct; and

g. Whether, as a result of the horrific and wrongful conduct of Defendants, the Plaintiff class is entitled to restitution or other equitable relief, or to compensatory or punitive damages.

11. The claims of the individually named Plaintiff is typical of the claims of the Plaintiff Class Members. Plaintiff and all members of the Plaintiff Class have been similarly affected by the Defendants common course of conduct and the members of each class have identical claims against the Defendants which acted individually and/or in concert with one another and with the Nazi Regime. The claims of all class members depend on a showing of Defendants' common course of conduct, as described herein, which give Plaintiff, individually and as class representative, the right to the relief sought herein.

12. There is no conflict as between Plaintiff and the other members of the class with respect to this action or the claims for relief. Plaintiff knows and understands his/their asserted rights and their roles as class representatives.

13. Plaintiff and his/their attorneys are able to and will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the Class. Plaintiffs' attorneys are experienced class action litigators who are well able to conduct the proposed litigation. Plaintiffs' attorneys can vigorously prosecute the rights of the proposed class members.

14. Prosecution of separate actions by individual Plaintiffs will create the risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications and will establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants in that different Courts may order Defendants to provide different types of accounting or take other inconsistent actions.

15. Prosecutions of separate actions by individual plaintiffs will, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of other proposed class members not party to the adjudications or will substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interest in that, for example, Defendants may exhaust their available funds in satisfying the claims of earlier plaintiffs to the detriment of later plaintiffs.

16. Defendants have acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the proposed class, making final injunctive relief and correspondent declaratory relief appropriate with respect to the class as a whole in that Defendants have been unjustly enriched by their participation in a conspiracy (a) to enslave and exploit member of the class, ( b) to convert of the value of class members slave/forced labor and services, and (c) to prevent and/or refuse restitution to the proposed class members, (d) to prevent and/or refuse to disgorge wrongfully gained and/or earned profits and benefits, or (e) to provide a full and complete accounting and disclosure of the extent of their aforesaid actions against Holocaust Victims.

17. Common questions of law and fact predominate in the claims of all class members including the named Plaintiff. These claims depend on proving Defendants are liable for their acts and/or omission based on evidence of a common scheme. Plaintiff's , and the plaintiff class members' , proposed evidentiary showings would be based on the same documents and testimony concerning Defendants' actions.

18. A class action is superior to the other available methods for the fair, just an efficient adjudication of the controversy. Plaintiff and the Plaintiff class members have no interest in individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions and, instead are on the whole aged and infirm and, therefore incapable as practical matter of pursuing individual claims. Even if individual class members had the resources to pursue individual litigation, it would be unduly burdensome to the Courts in which the individual litigation would proceed. Individual litigation magnifies the delay and expenses to all parties in the Court system of resolving the controversies engendered by Defendants' individual and/or common course of conduct. The class action device allows a single court to provide the benefits of unitary adjudication, judicial economy and the fair and equitable handling of all plaintiffs' claims in a single forum. The conduct of this action as a class action conserves the resources of the parties and of the judicial system, and preserves the rights of each class member. Furthermore, for most class members, a class action is the only feasible mechanism that allows them an opportunity for legal redress and justice. A large concentration of proposed class members is estimated to reside in this District and nearby states. The management of this litigation as a class will pose few problems for this Court.

19. There is another related class action pending against this defendant in this Court, entitled Pollack et al v. Siemens et al, pending before the Hon. I. Leo Glasser USDJ. The Pollack v. Siemens case is/was the first Holocaust victim slave/forced labor class action against Siemens AG. There is/are other cases against this defendant filed both in this District and the District of New Jersey.

20. Certification of the Plaintiff class is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and also under 23(b) (1), 23(b) (2) and/or 23(b) (3).

EQUITABLE TOLLING

21. The Defendants with the active assistance of each other and third parties, have concealed information from the Plaintiff and from the proposed plaintiff class by, inter alia:

a. Concealing the true nature and/or extent of its wilful and/or knowing cooperation with and/or assistance to the Nazi regime and prolonging the Holocaust;

b. withholding information from Plaintiff and the plaintiff class members about the value of Defendants use of slave/forced labor; and

c. withholding information about the profits and/or benefits that Defendants have retained.

22. Since 1995 the archived records concerning the World War II actions of, amongst others, Germany and private German Banks, financial institutions and companies and other countries and private banks, financial institutions and companies which cooperated with the Nazi Regime, were and/or are being opened to the public. These records sparked a re-examination of various corporations and/or financial institutions roles in the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during World War II and, by their inaction, deceit and concealment, perpetuated into the present.

23. Prior to November 5, 1997, German law barred Plaintiff's and the plaintiffs class' claims for compensation and/or damages from private companies for and/or resulting from slave/forced labor during the Second World War. On November 7, 1997 a ruling of the Landgericht Court in Bonn lifted this 50 year ban and, for the first time, slave/forced labo rers were permitted to file claims for compensations and/or damages against private German companies.

Rest of the Complaint/Dokonczenie pozwu.

Strona glowna.