Rio Tinto, PLC, 671 F.3d 736, 758 (9th Cir. 2011) (concluding that the prohibition against genocide is a “specific, universal, and obligatory internationally accepted norm” since World War II); see also Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc., 562 F.3d 163, 187 (2d Cir. 2009) (finding that nonconsensual medical experimentation of humans falls within the Alien Tort Statute's jurisdiction); but see Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc., 416 F.3d 1242, 1253 (11th Cir. 2005) (finding that Guatemalan unionists' claim that they were shoved and had their hair pulled by armed security officials during eight hours of detention was insufficient to allege torture under the Alien Tort Statute). Courts cannot adjudicate claims for “‘violations of any international law norm with less definite content and acceptance among civilized nations' than those offenses historically recognized.” M.C. v. Bianchi, 782 F.Supp.2d 127, 130 (E.D. Pa. 2011); see Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC, 671 F.3d 736, 758 (9th Cir. 2011) (concluding that the prohibition against genocide has been an appropriate “specific, universal, and obligatory internationally accepted norm” since World War II); see also Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 738 (2004) (holding that an illegal detention of a human for less than one day violated no norm of international law to support an Alien Tort Statute claim).

Because United Water contends that State Farm's allegations, accepted as true, fail to invoke this court's jurisdiction, it asserts a facial challenge. M.C. v. Bianchi, 782 F. Supp. 2d 127, 128 (E.D. Pa. 2011). "In reviewing a facial attack, the court must only consider the allegations of the complaint and documents referenced therein and attached thereto, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Gould, 220 F.3d at 176.