658 F.Supp.2d 131 (D.D.C. 2009), 07-1022 (RCL), John Doe VIII v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

Docket Nº:Civil 07-1022 (RCL).
Citation:658 F.Supp.2d 131
Opinion Judge:ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, Chief Judge.
Party Name:JOHN DOE VIII, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
Attorney:Agnieszka M. Fryszman, Kathleen M. Konopka, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC, Maureen E. McOwen, Office of Attorney General, Terry Collingsworth, Conrad & Scherer, LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs. Alex Young K. Oh, Craig Aaron Benson, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Martin J....
Case Date:September 30, 2009
Court:United States District Courts, District of Columbia
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 131

658 F.Supp.2d 131 (D.D.C. 2009)

JOHN DOE VIII, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

Civil No. 07-1022 (RCL).

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

September 30, 2009

Page 132

Agnieszka M. Fryszman, Kathleen M. Konopka, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC, Maureen E. McOwen, Office of Attorney General, Terry Collingsworth, Conrad & Scherer, LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Alex Young K. Oh, Craig Aaron Benson, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Martin J. Weinstein, Wilkie Farr & Gallagher, LLP, Washington, DC, Robert J. Meyer, Patrick J. Conlon, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Houston, TX, Theodore V. Wells, Jr., Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, Chief Judge.

Before the Court is defendants' Motion [20] to Dismiss. Defendants argue eight separate grounds for dismissal. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that plaintiffs lack standing. Accordingly, the Court need not address the remaining grounds for dismissal and will grant defendants' motion.

I. BACKGROUND

The Court notes that a number of the issues raised by defendants' motion are similar to issues raised in the ongoing matter John Doe, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., Civ. No. 01-1357 (D.D.C.) (" Doe I " ). Doe I, filed in 2001, involves allegations by eleven anonymous Aceh residents against Indonesian soldiers acting as Exxon Mobil security personnel. Doe I (like the instant case) was originally assigned to Judge Oberdorfer of this Court and was transferred to the undersigned in September 2008.

Anonymous plaintiffs John Doe VIII, John Doe IX, John Doe X, and John Doe XI are citizens of the Aceh Province, Indonesia.1 (Compl. ¶ ¶ 6-9.) Defendants are four corporations: Exxon Mobil Corporation (EMC), Mobil Corporation (MC), Mobil Oil Corporation (MOC), and Exxon Mobil Oil Indonesia (EMOI). ( Id. ¶ ¶ 10-17.) EMC is incorporated in New Jersey and has its principal place of business in Texas. ( Id. ¶ 10.) MC and MOC are both wholly owned subsidiaries of EMC with principal places of business in Texas. ( Id. ¶ ¶ 13-14.) EMOI, another wholly owned subsidiary of EMC, was incorporated in Delaware at the time of the conduct at issue in this Complaint (2004) but was reincorporated in the Cayman Islands in December 2005 (prior to the 2007 filing of plaintiffs' Complaint herein). ( Id. ¶ 16.) EMOI's principal place of business is in Indonesia. ( Id. )

Plaintiffs' claims arise from activities related to the Arun natural gas field in Aceh. Defendants operate several natural gas facilities at the Arun field. ( Id. ¶ 34.) Plaintiffs allege that defendants retained members of the Indonesian military to provide security for the Arun facilities. ( Id. ¶ 39.) Plaintiffs further allege that, while under direction of defendants, the retained soldiers committed a variety of offenses against plaintiffs. ( Id. ¶ 48.) Specifically:

• John Doe VIII alleges that in June 2004, soldiers acting as security personnel

Page 133

...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP