Doe

Doe I v. Unocal Corp.

Bad Law
110 F. Supp. 2d 1294·2000 WL 1239935·2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13327
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaAugust 31, 2000CV 96-6959 RSWL (BQRx), CV 96-6112 RSWL (BQRx)California8,764 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lew, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. Introduction

Pending in this Court are two related actions filed by fifteen villagers from the Tenasserim region of Burma. The remaining defendants in the first action, Roe, et al. v. Unocal Corp., et al., No. CV 96-6112 RSWL (BQRx), are Unocal Corporation and Union Oil Company of California (“Union Oil”). The remaining defendants in the second action, Doe, et al. v. Unocal Corp., et al., No. CV 96-6959 RSWL (BQRx), are Unocal Corporation, Union Oil, and two Unocal executives, John Imle and Roger Beach. The defendants in both actions are collectively referred to as “Unocal.”

Plaintiffs allege that Unocal entered into a joint venture with Total S.A. (“Total”), a French oil company, and the Myanmar government, to extract natural gas from oil fields off the coast of Burma and to transport the gas to the Thai border via a gas pipeline. Plaintiffs further allege that Unocal is liable for international human rights violations perpetrated by the Burmese military in furtherance and for the benefit of the pipeline portion of the joint venture project.

Before the Court are four consolidated motions for summary judgment filed by…

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.