Legal Opinion
Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided October 14, 2005No. CIV.A. 01-1357(LFO)PublishedCited by 33 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
OBERDORFER, District Judge.
Pending is defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint. Defendants seek dismissal on several grounds: (1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on plaintiffs’ Alien Tort Statute and Torture Victim Protection Act claims; (2) nonjusticiability; (3) forum non conveniens; (4) lack of personal jurisdiction over Exxon Mobil Oil Indonesia; and (5) statute of limitations on John Doe V’s claims [docket no. 13]. 1 For reasons explained below, defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Central Bank of Denver, N. A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Sosa v. Alvarez-MachainSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Clinton v. City of New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Aziz v. Alcolac, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2011
- Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2011
- Doe, John v. Exxon Mobil CorpCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2007
- Bowoto v. Chevron Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 2008
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.