On August 13, 2007, District Court Judge Susan Illston issued an order reinstating claims brought by plaintiffs under the ATS against defendants. Order 1636 reconsidered the Court's earlier decision, issued August 22, 2006 (hereinafter "Order 1203"), holding that plaintiffs could not bring ATS claims requiring state action against private actors. Order 1636, by contrast, held that aiders and abettors may be vicariously liable for acts they could not have committed as a principal. Because the Court previously had held that aiding and abetting liability is available under the ATS, see Order 1203, the Court held that plaintiffs could bring ATS claims requiring state action against private actors, such as defendants, even if they could not be liable as principals for the same ATS claims (huh?). The Court relied on, inter alia, various criminal cases discussing aiding and abetting liability, the Restatement (Second) of Torts, policy considerations, cases discussing aiding and abetting in the context of the Torture Victims Protection Act ("TVPA") and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC, 487 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2007) (which has been reheard en banc and Federal Courts directed NOT to cite). The Court DENIED defendants' motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration [Docket No. 1649]., and GRANTED in part and DENIED in part plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a Ninth Amended Complaint [Docket No. 1651].