Doe

Doe v. Unocal Corp.

Good Law
67 F. Supp. 2d 1140·1999 WL 819698·1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19507
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaAugust 5, 1999CV 96-6959 RAP (BQRx)California3,982 words

Opinion

Opinion

Paez, J.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

I.

Introduction and Factual Background

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Revised Motion for Class Certification un der Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doe plaintiffs bring this action against defendants Unocal Corporation (“Unocal”), Total S.A. (“Total”), the Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise (“MOGE”), the State Law and Order Restoration Council (“SLORC” or “SPDC”) and individual defendants John Imle, President of Unocal, and Roger C. Beach, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Unocal. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief and damages for international human rights violations allegedly perpetrated by defendants in furtherance of defendants Unocal, Total and MOGE’s joint venture, the Yadana gas pipeline project.

The Court has previously described the factual allegations of plaintiffs’ complaint and the relationship of the defendants in its two prior published opinions. See Doe v. Unocal Corp., 963 F.Supp. 880 (C.D.Cal. 1997) and Doe v. Unocal Corp., 27 F.Supp.2d 1174 (C.D.Cal.1998). The parties have submitted, and the Court has reviewed, voluminous evidence in support of and in…

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.