Legal Opinion
Roe v. Unocal Corp.
District Court, C.D. California
Decided August 10, 1999No. CV 96-6112 RAP (BQRx)PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF JOHN ROE IX
PAEZ, District Judge.
I
Introduction
Pending before the Court is defendant Unocal Corporation’s (“Unocal”) motion to dismiss plaintiff John Roe IX with prejudice. Plaintiff Roe IX asserts six causes of action: (1) Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350; (2) civil conspiracy; (3) joint venture liability; (4) implied partnership liability; (5) negligence; and (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress. Defendant Unocal claims that plaintiff Roe IX’s claims in the Third Amended Complaint are barred by the act of state doctrine.…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Jena Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department Al Olsen, Police Chief, Individually and as a Police AgentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Hal Roach Studios, Inc., a Delaware Corporation v. Richard Feiner and Company, Inc., a New York CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Feres v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Chappell v. WallaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Doe I v. State of IsraelDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2005
- Sarei v. Rio Tinto PLC.District Court, C.D. California · 2002
- Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.District Court, C.D. California · 2005
- European Community v. RJR Nabisco, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2001
- Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc.District Court, W.D. Washington · 2005
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.