Doe v. Unocal Corp.
| Decision Date | 25 March 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 96-6959 RAP (BQRx).,CV 96-6959 RAP (BQRx). |
| Citation | 963 F.Supp. 880 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | JOHN DOE I, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNOCAL CORP., et al., Defendants. |
Doe plaintiffs, farmers from the Tenasserim region of Burma, bring this class action against defendants Unocal Corp. ("Unocal"), Total S.A. ("Total"), the Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise ("MOGE"), the State Law and Order Restoration Council ("SLORC"), and individuals John Imle, President of Unocal, and Roger C. Beach Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Unocal. According to plaintiffs' complaint, SLORC is a military junta that seized control in Burma in 1988, and MOGE is a state-owned company controlled by SLORC that produces and sells energy products. Plaintiffs seek injunctive, declaratory and compensatory relief for alleged international human rights violations perpetrated by defendants in furtherance of defendants Unocal, Total and MOGE's joint venture, the Yadana gas pipeline project.
Plaintiffs contend defendants are building offshore drilling stations to extract natural gas from the Andaman Sea and a port and pipeline to transport the gas through the Tenasserim region of Burma and into Thailand. Plaintiffs allege that defendants, through the SLORC military, intelligence and/or police forces, have used and continue to use violence and intimidation to relocate whole villages, enslave farmers living in the area of the proposed pipeline, and steal farmers' property for the benefit of the pipeline. Plaintiffs allege defendants' conduct has caused plaintiffs to suffer death of family members, assault, rape and other torture, forced labor, and the loss of their homes and property, in violation of state law, federal law and customary international law. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class numbering in the tens of thousands and consisting of
all residents of the Tenasserim region of Burma (bounded on the north by the town of Ye; on the south by the town of Tavoy; on the west by the coastline and offshore islands; and on the east by the Thai/ Burmese border) who have been, are, or will be forced to relocate their place of residence, and/or contribute labor and/or property and/or [be] subject[ed] to the death of family members, assault, rape or other torture, and other human rights violations in furtherance of the Yadana gas pipeline project in which defendants are joint venturers.
Plaintiffs seek damages for (1) violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"); (2) forced labor; (3) crimes against humanity; (4) torture; (5) violence against women; (6) arbitrary arrest and detention; (7) cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; (8) wrongful death; (9) battery; (10) false imprisonment; (11) assault (12) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (13) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (14) negligence per se; (15) conversion; (16) negligent hiring; (17) negligent supervision; (18) violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200. In their nineteenth claim, plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief.
Pending before the Court is defendant Unocal's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Failure to Join a Party under Rule 19, and Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief Can Be Granted ("Motion"). Upon consideration of the parties' moving, opposition and reply papers and the oral arguments of counsel, the Court concludes that:
(1) SLORC and MOGE are entitled to sovereign immunity pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA");
(2) SLORC and MOGE are not indispensable parties under Rule 19 because complete relief may be accorded among the remaining parties in their absence;
(3) subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims against the remaining defendants is available under the Alien Tort Claims Act ("ATCA") and 28 U.S.C. § 1367;
(4) the Court need not reach the jurisdictional questions presented with respect to the Torture Victim Protection Act ("TVPA") and RICO;
(5) prudential concerns embodied in the Act of State doctrine do not preclude consideration of plaintiffs' claims.
(6) plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts to survive Unocal's motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6);
(7) plaintiffs claims are not barred by applicable statutes of limitation because factual question exist concerning whether the applicable limitations periods were tolled. Accordingly, the Court need not reach the question of continuing violation at this time and need not determine whether the ten-year period applicable to the TVPA applies to the ATCA. Nonetheless, the Court grants plaintiffs leave to amend to allege additional facts concerning tolling in order to narrow the scope of argument at the summary judgment stage;
(8) plaintiffs are granted leave to amend their eighteenth claim for relief under California Business and Professions Code § 17200; and
(9) plaintiffs shall not amend their complaint in any other respect without leave of Court.
Plaintiffs allege that in the face of massive, nonviolent, pro-democracy demonstrations throughout Burma, the ruling military elite in Burma created the State Law and Order Restoration Council ("SLORC"). SLORC imposed martial law on Burma and renamed it "Myanmar" on September 18, 1988. On May 27, 1990, SLORC held multi-party elections in which the opposition party, the National League for Democracy ("NLD"), founded by Tin Oo and 1991 Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kui, captured 82% of the parliamentary seats. SLORC promptly arrested NLD leaders and intensified its campaign of repression against the pro-democracy movement throughout the country. SLORC has been widely condemned for its 1988 crackdown and for its subsequent practices. According to plaintiffs, Complaint, ¶ 36.
Plaintiffs contend that in or before 1991, several international oil companies, including Unocal and Total, began negotiating with SLORC regarding oil and gas exploration in Burma. As a result of these negotiations the Yadana gas pipeline project was established to obtain natural gas and oil from the Andaman Sea and transport it, via a pipeline, across the Tenasserim region of Burma. In July of 1992, Total and MOGE signed a production-sharing contract for a joint venture gas drilling project in the Yadana natural gas field. In early 1993, Unocal formally agreed to participate in the joint venture drilling project.
Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that the parties agreed that SLORC, acting as an agent for the joint venture, would clear forest, level ground, and provide labor, materials and security for the Yadana pipeline project. Plaintiffs also contend, on information and belief, that Unocal and Total subsidized SLORC activities in the region, and that numerous acts in furtherance of the joint venture were and continue to be taken in California, including (1) provision of funds and other resources to the project; (2) decision-making regarding assignment of personnel and technology to the project; (3) monitoring, determining and auditing the activities of the project, and (4) decision-making regarding labor relations on the project.
According to plaintiffs, when Unocal and Total entered into the agreement by which SLORC undertook to clear the pipeline route and provide security for the pipeline, defendants knew or should have known that SLORC had a history of human rights abuses violative of customary international law, including the use of forced relocation and forced labor. Nonetheless, plaintiffs claim Unocal and Total provided money to SLORC to pay costs incurred by SLORC for its work on the Yadana gas pipeline project, and paid some, but not all, of the persons forced to work on the project. Those paid allegedly included persons forced to act as porters to military personnel. Plaintiffs assert, on information and belief, that defendants Unocal and Total were aware of and benefitted from, and continue to be aware of and benefit from, the use of forced labor to support the Yadana gas pipeline project.
In the course of its actions on behalf of the joint venture, plaintiffs allege SLORC carried out a program of violence and intimidation against area villagers. SLORC soldiers forced farmers to relocate their villages, confiscated property and forced inhabitants to clear forest, level the pipeline route, build headquarters for pipeline employees, prepare military outposts and carry supplies and equipment. As a result of the forced relocation, many villagers lost their homes and were deprived of the use of their crops and livestock. As a result of the prevalence of SLORC's forced labor practices, many farmers, including several plaintiffs, were unable to maintain their own homes and farms and were forced to flee. On information and belief, plaintiffs allege women and girls in the Tenasserim region have been targets of rape and other sexual abuse by SLORC officials, both when left behind after male family members have been taken away to perform forced labor and when they themselves have been subjected to forced labor. According to plaintiffs, there are also reports of rape and gang-rape by SLORC officials guarding women during periods of forced labor.
Plaintiffs allege the defendant corporations knew that SLORC committed human rights abuses, including forced labor and forced relocation, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tachiona v. Mugabe
...regime in Algeria and accused of instigating a campaign of atrocities against women and political opponents); Doe I v. Unocal Corp., 963 F.Supp. 880, 890-92 (C.D.Cal.1997) (sustaining a claim under the ATCA brought against a private corporation that entered a joint venture with state actors......
-
Estate of Cabello v. Fernandez-Larios
...(quoting Hilao v. Marcos, 103 F.3d 767, 773 (9th Cir.1996) (citing S.Rep. No. 249, at 11 (1991))); see also John Doe v. Unocal Corp., 963 F.Supp. 880, 898 (C.D.Cal.1997) (finding determination of whether TVPA limitations period is applicable to all ATCA claims unnecessary because issue of f......
-
Doe I v. Unocal Corp.
...action against Unocal, Total, Myanmar Oil, the Myanmar Military, Unocal President Imle and Unocal CEO Beach. Doe I v. Unocal Corp., 963 F.Supp. 880, 883 (C.D.Cal.1997) ("Doe I"). Plaintiffs in Doe I alleged that the Defendants' conduct in connection with the Project had caused them to suf......
-
Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
...citizens have begun bringing human rights lawsuits against multinational corporations in U.S. courts. See, e.g., Doe v. Unocal Corp., 963 F.Supp. 880, 883-84 (C.D.Cal.1997) (considered to be first such case). The complaints often allege corporate complicity in various human rights violation......
-
Multinational Companies Become Targets Under the Alien Tort Claims Act
...committed human-rights abuses while clearing ground and providing security for pipeline construction activities. Doe v. Unocal, 963 F. Supp. 880 (C.D. Cal. 1997), aff 'd in part, rev'd in part, 2002 WL 31063976 (9th Cir. Sept. 18, 2002). Notably, plaintiffs did not assert that Unocal itself......
-
Human Rights Boon or Time Bomb: The Alien Tort Statute and the Need for Congressional Action
...Corp., 395 F.3d 932, 946 (9th Cir. 2002), vacated by, rehearing en banc granted by 395 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2003); Doe v. Unocal Corp., 963 F. Supp. 880, 891–92 (C.D. Cal. 1997). 63 See STEPHENS ET AL., supra note 44, at 222–25 (discussing a violation of the Geneva Conventions as a cognizable......
-
Solving the Settlement Puzzle in Human Rights Litigation
...[ https://perma.cc/4Z54-9XKS ]. 29. See, e.g. , Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d. 232 (2d Cir. 1995); Doe v. Unocal, 963 F. Supp. 880 (C.D. Cal. 1997). 30. While this Article focuses on plaintiffs and their interest in the settlement process, defendants may also have strong incentives to settle c......
-
The curious history of the Alien Tort Statute.
...in Nigeria. See Complaint, Roe v. Unocal Corp., 70 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (No. 96-6112); Complaint, Doe v. Unocal Corp., 963 F. Supp. 880 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (No. 96-6959); Complaint, Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 2002 WL 319887 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2002) (No. (253) See Michael J......
-
Lucien J. Dhooge, Due Diligence as a Defense to Corporate Liability Pursuant to the Alien Tort Statute
...of the Myanma military to provide security for a natural gas pipeline in which Unocal was a participant. See Doe v. Unocal Corp., 963 F. Supp. 880 (C.D. Cal. 1997). 180 See, e.g., Weil Memorandum, supra note 92, at 2 (characterizing the language utilized in human rights instruments as "unde......