Flick

Flick v. Exxon Corp.

Good Law
129 Cal. Rptr. 760·1976 Cal. App. LEXIS 1564·58 Cal. App. 3d 212
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 13, 1976Civ. 15116California2,695 words

Opinion

Opinion

Regan, J.

This is a shareholders’ derivative action brought by two shareholders of Exxon Corporation (“Exxon”) against Exxon and its wholly owned subsidiary, Esso (Argentina), Inc. (“Esso”); and the directors and officers of Exxon who allegedly authorized and paid a $14.2 million ransom for Victor Samuelson, a corporate executive, kidnaped by Argentine terrorists.

All directors who were on the board of Exxon at the time the payment was authorized and made, and the secretary of the corporation, were named and served as defendants. All of these individual defendants appeared specially and moved, pursuant to section 410.30 and 418.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to quash the service of the summons and complaint on them and, in the alternative, to have the court dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum.

Exxon conceded jurisdiction but moved for dismissal on the ground of inconvenient forum. Esso made the same motions as the individual defendants.

After a hearing the court granted a motion to quash the service of summons and complaint on the individual defendants and granted the motions of Exxon and Esso to dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.