Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantjurisdictionmotionhuman rightsmotion to dismiss
contractplaintiffdefendantjurisdictiondiscoverystatutemotioncorporationclass actiondue processmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

State of Wyo. v. U.S., 933 F.Supp. 1030
View Case »
Defenders of Wildlife v. Chertoff, 527 F.Supp.2d 119
View Case »
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Massey, 772 F.Supp. 1296, 33 ERC 1796, 21 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,512
View Case »
In re Nassau County Consol. MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) Products Liability Litigation, 29 Misc.3d 1219(A), 918 N.Y.S.2d 399 (Table), 2010 WL 4400075, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 51892(U)
View Case »
Bestfoods v. U.S., 28 C.I.T. 1053, 342 F.Supp.2d 1312, 26 ITRD 2018
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 49 Fed.R.Serv.3d 739, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 10,068, 01 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3344, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4129

Facts

The plaintiffs, farmers from the Tenasserim region of Burma, alleged that Unocal and Total, in collaboration with the military junta SLORC, engaged in human rights violations during the construction of the Yadana gas pipeline. They claimed that the defendants used violence and intimidation to forcefully relocate villagers and compel them to work on the pipeline, resulting in severe harm to the plaintiffs, including death, assault, and forced labor. The plaintiffs sought both individual and class relief for these alleged violations under various legal frameworks.

Doe plaintiffs, farmers from the Tenasserim region of Burma, bring this class action against defendants Unocal Corporation (“Unocal”), individuals John Imle and Roger C. Beach, who are, respectively, the President and Chairman/Chief Executive Officer of Unocal, and Total S.A. (“Total”), a French corporation.

Issue

Did the court have personal jurisdiction over Total S.A. based on its contacts with California and the activities of its subsidiaries?

Total's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction raises interesting questions regarding when a “national contacts” test is available under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(2) … and whether, with respect to general and specific personal jurisdiction under the forum state's long-arm statute, the alter ego and agency doctrines require the Court to attribute to a foreign national the contacts of its subsidiaries in the United States.

Rule

To establish personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state such that exercising jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

To exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in a case presenting a federal question, the district court must first determine that “a rule or statute potentially confers jurisdiction over the defendant and then conclude that asserting jurisdiction does not offend the principles of Fifth Amendment due process.”

Analysis

The court analyzed whether Total had sufficient minimum contacts with California to justify personal jurisdiction. It found that Total's direct contacts were minimal and that the activities of its subsidiaries could not be attributed to it under the alter ego or agency doctrines. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to show that Total purposefully availed itself of the benefits of conducting business in California or that their claims arose from any such contacts.

Plaintiffs have not made out a prima facie case that the Court has specific jurisdiction over Total by virtue of its various contracts with Unocal regarding the Yadana pipeline project. Nor have plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to warrant additional jurisdictional discovery on the issue of specific jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's decision to grant Total's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of establishing sufficient contacts.

Consequently, the Court need not consider the Republic of France's amicus brief for purposes of the inquiry into specific jurisdiction.

Who won?

Total S.A. prevailed in the case because the court found that it lacked sufficient minimum contacts with California to establish personal jurisdiction.

We affirm the district court's judgment and adopt the portions of its opinion, Doe v. Unocal, 27 F.Supp.2d 1174 (C.D.Cal.1998) , appearing in the Appendix as our own.

You must be