Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

John Doe VII v. Exxon Mobil Corp (09–7125) is a lawsuit filed in the United States by 15 Indonesian villagers against Exxon Mobil Corporation from the oil-rich province of Aceh, Indonesia. The case has widespread implications for multinational corporations doing business in other countries. The case may eventually reach the Supreme Court because lower federal courts have disagreed on the liability of United States companies operating outside of the United States. Fifteen Indonesian villagers claim government security forces working for Exxon Mobil committed brutal oppression while guarding a natural gas facility in 2000 to 2001. On July 8, 2011 a divided 2-1 panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, reversed part of a ruling by the federal district court reinstating the lawsuit. In their decision, the court stated that the 1789 Alien Tort Statute allowed corporations in foreign countries to be "held liable for the torts committed by their agents."[1][2]

Allegations

The 15 Indonesian villagers contended in their lawsuit that family members were "beaten, burned, shocked with cattle prods, kicked, and subjected to other forms of brutality and cruelty" amounting to torture in Indonesia's Aceh province between 1999 and 2001, during a period of civil unrest. Exxon Mobil retained soldiers from Indonesia's military as guards for a natural gas facility in Aceh, despite knowing of past human rights abuses by the Indonesian army, leading to human rights violations against Aceh villagers.[2] Plaintiffs sued in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.[3]

First dismissal

In July 2002, the Legal Adviser of the Department of State, William Howard Taft IV, sent a letter to the district court and later filed a statement of interest warning that allowing the lawsuit to proceed "would harm relations with Indonesia".[3] In October 2005, District Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer dismissed the plaintiffs' claims under the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act, finding they were political questions and so lacked justiciability.[4] The common law tort claims, however, were allowed to proceed.[3]

In January 2007, the divided United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.[5] Judge David B. Sentelle, joined by Senior Judge Harry T. Edwards held that Exxon's attempt to seek an interlocutory appeal was not justified this early into the litigation.[3] Judge Brett Kavanaugh dissented, arguing that the appeal should instead be treated as a petition for mandamus, and that federal courts should dismiss lawsuits as nonjudiciable whenever the Executive Branch has reasonably claimed the litigation would harm U.S. foreign policy interests.[3]

Second dismissal

In September 2009, District Judge Royce Lamberth found that the remaining plaintiffs had no standing to sue.[6]

In July 2011, the divided D.C. Circuit reversed.[7] Judge Judith W. Rogers, joined by Judge David S. Tatel, found that corporations are not immune under international law through the ATS, explicitly rejecting the contrary conclusion reached by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.[8] Judge Kavanaugh dissented in part, arguing that Second Circuit had reached the correct conclusion.[8]

Subsequent developments

In April 2013, the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit in Kiobel. Regardless, in July 2015, District Judge Lamberth found that the case could proceed.[9][10] That year, Rex Tillerson sold off Exxon Mobil's interest in the Aceh oilfields to the Indonesian government.[11]

In June 2019, the District Court dismissed the case holding that under the Supreme Court's jurisprudence regarding the Alien Tort Statute, Exxon Corp. could not be held liable.[12]

Notes
  1. Bill Mears, Exxon Mobil to face lawsuit over alleged human rights violations, CNN, (July 8, 2011).
  2. Jonathan Stempel, Indonesia torture case vs Exxon Mobil revived, Reuters, (July 8, 2011).
  3. Note, Recent Case: D.C. Circuit Declines To Overturn Lower Court's Finding of Justiciablity in Tort Suit Brought by Indonesian Villagers, 121 Harv. L. Rev. 898 (2008).
  4. Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 398 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2005).
  5. Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 473 F.3d 345 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
  6. Doe VIII v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 658 F. Supp. 2d 131 (D.D.C. 2009).
  7. Doe VIII v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 654 F.3d 11 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
  8. Note, Recent Case: D.C. Circuit Holds Corporations Not Immune from ATS Claims, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 674 (2011).
  9. Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 01-1357 (RCL) (D.D.C. July 6, 2015).
  10. GlobeNewswire (7 July 2015). "ExxonMobil Indonesian Villagers Human Rights Abuse Case to Proceed in Federal Court". MarketWatch. Retrieved 18 July 2018.
  11. Michaels, Samantha (11 January 2017). "Torture allegations shadow Rex Tillerson's time at Exxon Mobil". Mother Jones. Retrieved 18 July 2018.
  12. Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 391 F. Supp. 3d 76, No. 01-1357 (RCL) (D.D.C. June 3, 2019).
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.