Doe I. Et Al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation

573 F.Supp. 2d 16 (2008)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In 1967, Mobil Oil Corporation incorporated Mobil Oil Indonesia Inc. (MOI), a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Jakarta. MOI's initial capitalization was $1,000. MOI discovered the lucrative Arun gas field in Indonesia's Aceh province on the island of Sumatra. Through a joint venture known as PT Arun, Mobil Oil Corporation and the Indonesian Government processed the natural gas for shipment. The Indonesian Government may designate an asset as a 'Vital National Object,' which requires military security protection. Ds contend that, since 1983, the Indonesian Government has designated the Arun Field such a Vital National Object. Ps argue that Ds were not required to contract for the use of the military to protect the Arun Field. A Production Sharing Contract governs the relationship between MOI and Pertamina and provides for military security protection at MOI's discretion. MOI paid Pertamina for these security costs. Mobil Corporation and Exxon Corporation merged in 1999, creating the corporate entities that include the current 'Exxon Defendants.' The new overarching parent corporation of the various Mobil and Exxon affiliates became Defendant Exxon Mobil Corporation. Defendant Mobil Corporation became its wholly-owned subsidiary. Mobil's subsidiary, in turn, is Defendant ExxonMobil Oil Corporation. These three entities--Exxon Mobil Corporation, Mobil Corporation, and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation (in descending hierarchical order)--comprise 'the U.S. Ds.' Mobil, the second entity in this chain, was also the ultimate parent of MOI, which--after a name change--became EMOI (Exxon Mobil Oil Indonesia Inc.), Troops assigned to EMOI allegedly beat, shot, and tortured Ps. EMOI could no longer operate the production facilities in Acehm and shut down operations for approximately three months. Ps filed their Complaint against the four Exxon Ds and Defendant PT Arun. When discovery closed, EMOI moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and all four Exxon Defendants moved for summary judgment.