John Doe I v. Exxon Mobil Corp
69 F. Supp. 3d 75
D.D.C.2014Background
- Two related Doe I and Doe VIII suits arise from injuries in Aceh, Indonesia caused by Indonesian soldiers hired to secure Exxon’s Arun facility.
- Plaintiffs allege Indonesian tort claims and, in Doe I, Alien Tort Statute (ATS) claims; Exxon moves to dismiss those claims.
- Exxon defendants EMC, Mobil Corp., EMOC, and EMOI are interconnected corporate entities; EMOI’s presence raises jurisdictional and consolidation issues.
- Courts prior decisions dismissed and remanded ATS and nonfederal claims; Kiobel and Perišič influenced APA and domestic/extraterritorial considerations.
- The court grants partial relief, grants leave to amend ATS claims, and dismisses EMOI from Doe VIII due to lack of complete diversity; other motions are resolved.
- The scheduling order and discovery issues are modified to permit amendment and potential renewed ATS challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Act of state doctrine applicability | No sovereign act implicated; plaintiffs seek damages from private actors. | Arises from Indonesian military actions under GOI; official acts may bar review. | Act of state doctrine not applicable; no official foreign acts alleged and Indonesian conduct not “official act.” |
| Forum non conveniens on Indonesian law claims | Indonesia is the appropriate forum for Indonesian-law claims. | Indonesia not available for all defendants; forum non conveniens fails. | Dismissal denied; Indonesia not proven as an available forum for all defendants. |
| Exhaustion of local remedies before ATS claims | Indonesian remedies are ineffective or non-existent; futility justifies ATS claims here. | ATS requires exhaustion where available and effective remedies exist. | Exhaustion not required where local remedies are futile; plaintiffs may pursue ATS in U.S. court. |
| Kiobel extraterritoriality and ability to amend | Kiobel changed law; amendment should allow alleging U.S.-based conduct to displace presumption. | Kiobel bars extraterritorial ATS claims absent U.S.-based conduct. | Plaintiffs may seek leave to amend to plead U.S.-based conduct; dismissal on extraterritoriality is without prejudice. |
| Diversity and EMOI as a non-diverse party; Rule 21 dismissal | EMOI’s presence destroys complete diversity in Doe VIII. | EMOI should not destroy diversity; may be indispensable. | EMOI dismissed from Doe VIII under Rule 21; diversity restored for remaining parties. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013) (presumption against extraterritoriality applies to ATS claims; touch-and-concern guidance)
- Doe VIII v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 654 F.3d 11 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (ATS aiding-and-abetting liability; nonfederal Indonesian-law claims.)
- Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Tech., Inc., 758 F.3d 516 (4th Cir. 2014) (touches on extraterritoriality and U.S.-based conduct as dispositive)
- Balintulo v. Daimler AG, 727 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2013) (Kiobel framework; corporate nationality and domestic conduct considerations)
- Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297 (1918) (acts of foreign military commander not subject to reexamination)