Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

Decision Date03 June 2019
Docket NumberCivil No. 01-cv-1357-RCL
Citation391 F.Supp.3d 76
Parties John DOE I et al., Plaintiffs, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia

391 F.Supp.3d 76

John DOE I et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION et al., Defendants.

Civil No. 01-cv-1357-RCL

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed June 3, 2019


391 F.Supp.3d 77

Agnieszka M. Fryszman, Joseph M. Sellers, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Kathleen M. Konopka, U.S. Department of Justice, Terrence P. Collingsworth, Washington, DC, Charles J. Ogletree, Jr., Charles J. Ogletree Consulting, Cambridge, MA, Paul L. Hoffman, Pro Hac Vice, Schonbrun Desimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman, Venice, CA, Tarek Farouk Maassarani, Takoma Park, MD, Theodore J. Leopold, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, for Plaintiffs.

Alex Young K. Oh, Craig Aaron Benson, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Jonathan D. Hacker, Walter E. Dellinger, III, Pro Hac Vice, O'Melveny & Meyers, LLP, Martin J. Weinstein, Robert J. Meyer, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Washington, DC, Jaren Janghorbani, Pro Hac Vice, Theodore V. Wells, Jr., Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY, Patrick J. Conlon, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Spring, TX, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Royce C. Lamberth, United States District Judge

Pursuant to an agreement with the Indonesian government, Exxon Mobil Corporation, a United States corporation, and several of its wholly owned subsidiaries (hereinafter Exxon) operated a large natural gas extraction and processing facility in the Aceh Province of Indonesia. Plaintiffs are Indonesian citizens who claim that Exxon's security forces engaged in extrajudicial

391 F.Supp.3d 78

killing; torture; cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; and arbitrary detention in violation of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and committed various common law torts. Now before the Court is Exxon's motion to dismiss the ATS claims. Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss the ATS Claims, ECF No. 634. For the reasons set forth below, the Court declines to recognize domestic corporate liability under the ATS in circumstances where, as here, the claims have caused significant diplomatic strife. The Court will therefore dismiss plaintiffs' ATS claims against Exxon.

Plaintiffs only remaining claims are the claims for wrongful death; battery; assault; arbitrary arrest, detention, and false imprisonment; negligence, negligent hiring; negligent supervision; and conversion. Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 193–240, ECF No. 465 [hereinafter Second Am. Compl.]. These tort claims are governed by Indonesian law. Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp. , 527 F. App'x 7, 7 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (vacating Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp. , 654 F.3d 11 (D.C. Cir. 2011), but expressly preserving the part of the 2011 opinion discussing plaintiffs' non-federal tort claims); Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp. , 69 F. Supp. 3d 75 (D.D.C. 2014) (dismissing plaintiffs' claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress).

I. Factual Background

This case arises out of alleged human rights abuses committed at or near natural gas development facilities operated by Exxon in the Aceh Province of Indonesia in 2000 and 2001. Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 176–86. Plaintiffs allege that they, or their decedents, were detained, tortured, sexually assaulted, killed, or otherwise abused by Exxon's paid military security personnel, who were under Exxon's direction and control. Id. The Court must accept the allegations of the plaintiffs' complaint as true and construe the complaint in favor of the plaintiffs at the motion to dismiss stage. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

Exxon operated the facilities in the Aceh Province pursuant to an agreement with the Indonesian government, which granted Exxon exclusive rights to develop and produce natural gas in the area. Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 22–35. Plaintiffs claim that Exxon's security forces were comprised of members of the Indonesian military. Id. ¶ 33. Security at the facilities was an enormous concern at the time, as there was an ongoing internal conflict in the Aceh Province. Exxon and its subsidiaries, which were incorporated at the time of the first complaint in New Jersey and Delaware, retained these soldiers as guards for its natural gas facility even though Exxon was allegedly aware that the Indonesian military had committed human rights abuses in the past and that performing the security contract would lead to human rights violations by the Indonesian soldiers against the Aceh residents. Id. ¶¶ 33–55.

According to the complaint, the Indonesian military's actions could be attributed to Exxon because they were committed by a unit dedicated solely to providing security for Exxon, and Exxon had the authority "to direct[ ] and control" the soldiers' actions. Id. ¶¶ 34–41. Plaintiffs allege that Exxon's executives in the U.S. received briefings on abuses committed by Exxon security personnel in Aceh against the local population. Id. ¶¶ 46–47, 49. Plaintiffs allege that this information was reported prior to their injuries. Id. ¶¶ 45–55. In particular, plaintiffs allege that Exxon's executives in the U.S. received reports that Exxon security personnel engaged in rape, torture, unlawful detention, assault, and killings. Id. ¶¶ 50–51. They also allege that Exxon's executives in the U.S. received

391 F.Supp.3d 79

reports from employees and advisors that the Indonesian military had a "poor reputation ... especially in the area of respecting human rights" and that their deployment in support of Exxon's operations risked "more of a possibility of an unfortunate incident." Id. ¶¶ 46, 48. Plaintiffs allege that Exxon's executives in the U.S. received reports that Exxon security personnel were committing human rights violations' on Exxon property, using Exxon equipment. Id. ¶¶ 50, 52. Also, staff allegedly warned Exxon's executives in the U.S. that supplying additional vehicles to the security personnel could lead to a greater likelihood of abuses by security personnel. Id. ¶ 70. Plaintiffs allege that U.S.-based Exxon executives nevertheless ordered the provision of supplies and vehicles for the Indonesian security personnel and that the underlying international law violations were committed using these supplies and vehicles. Id. ¶¶ 43, 89–91.

II. Procedural History

Judge Oberdorfer, who initially presided over this case, dismissed all of plaintiffs' ATS claims in 2005 following the Supreme Court's decision in Sosa, reasoning in part that adjudicating such claims could create diplomatic friction with Indonesia. See Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp. , 393 F. Supp. 2d 20, 22–27 (D.D.C. 2005). In response to Judge Oberdorfer's request, the U.S. State Department had submitted a Statement of Interest in 2002 warning that the lawsuit would "in fact risk a potentially serious adverse impact on significant interests of the United States, including interests related directly to the on-going struggle against international terrorism." Id. at 22 ; see Letter from William H. Taft, IV, Legal Adviser, Dep't of State, to the Honorable Louis F. Oberdorfer, U.S. Dist. Judge, U.S. Dist. Court for D.C. 1–2 (July 29, 2002), Amicus Curiae United States' Statement of Interest, ECF No. 38 [hereinafter Letter from William H. Taft, IV, Legal Adviser, Dep't of State, to the Honorable Louis F. Oberdorfer, U.S. Dist. Judge, U.S. Dist. Court for D.C. 1–2 (July 29, 2002), ECF No. 38]. The Government of Indonesia also objected to the litigation in a diplomatic note, stating that Indonesia "cannot accept the extra territorial jurisdiction of a United States court over an allegation against an Indonesian government institution, eq [sic] the Indonesia military, for operations taking place in Indonesia." Id. The concerns about diplomatic strife with Indonesia, among other reasons', led Judge Oberdorfer to dismiss the ATS claims against Exxon. Id. at 22–27.

Plaintiffs appealed Judge Oberdorfer's dismissal of the ATS claims to the D.C. Circuit. Exxon argued for the first time that a corporation is immune from liability under the ATS in a cross-appeal. Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp. , 654 F.3d 11, 15 (D.C. Cir. 2011), vacated, 527 F. App'x 7 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The D.C. Circuit reversed and restored the ATS claims in 2011. Id. The D.C. Circuit held that the ATS generally permitted corporate liability, over then-Judge Kavanaugh's dissent. Id. at 39–57, 71–91. This opinion was vacated in 2013 based on intervening changes in the law governing the extraterritorial reach of the ATS and the standard for aiding and abetting liability. Doe, 527 F. App'x at 7 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

Exxon again argued that corporations may not be held liable for causes of action arising under the ATS in 2015. Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp. , No. CV 01-1357, 2015 WL 5042118, at *2 (D.D.C. July 6, 2015). This Court rejected this argument based on the reasoning provided in the D.C. Circuit's 2011 opinion. Id. This Court reasoned that the D.C. Circuit's opinion on the matter was vacated because of issues unrelated to the question of corporate liability under the ATS, so there was no basis

391 F.Supp.3d 80

to revisit the question at that time. Id. But the 2015 opinion did dismiss the claim for disappearance under the ATS because this claim was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 22 juillet 2022
    ... JOHN DOE 1, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. No. 1:01-cv-1357-RCL United States District Court, District of Columbia July 22, 2022 . .          . MEMORANDUM OPINION . . . ... The Acehnese Conflict . . .          The. facts of this case took place during a brutal civil war. between a militant group seeking Aceh's independence and. the central Indonesian government. Periods of conflict. between ......
  • Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 22 juillet 2022
    ... . 1 JOHN DOE 1, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. No. 1:01-cv-1357-RCL United States District Court, District of Columbia July 22, 2022 . .          . MEMORANDUM OPINION . . . ... The Acehnese Conflict . . .          The. facts of this case took place during a brutal civil war. between a militant group seeking Aceh's independence and. the central Indonesian government. Periods of conflict. between ......
  • Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 26 avril 2021
    ...background and extended procedural history. See Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp. , Mem. Op. (Aug. 10, 2020), ECF No. 719; Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp. , 391 F. Supp. 3d 76 (D.D.C. 2019) ; Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp. , No. 01-cv-1357-RCL, 2019 WL 2348100, (D.D.C. June 3, 2019) ; Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp. , ......
  • Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 26 avril 2021
    ...and extended procedural history. See Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., Mem. Op. (Aug. 10, 2020), ECF No. 719; Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 391 F. Supp. 3d 76 (D.D.C. 2019); Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 01-cv-1357-RCL, 2019 WL 2348100, (D.D.C. June 3, 2019); Doe v. Exxon Page 2 Mobil Corp., Mem. Op. (......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT