1. John Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

2. I. Alleged Facts A. Defendant Exxon hired the Indonesian military to protect their pipeline & property in Indonesia B. Plaintiffs allege various injuries from the treatment by the Indonesian military 1.Human rights abuses 2.Wrongful death 3.Assault/battery 4.Infliction of Emotional Distress 5.Conversion of property

3. II. Cause of Action Alien Tort Claims Act Alien Tort Claims Act Torture Victims Protection Act Torture Victims Protection Act International human rights law International human rights law Statutory and common tort law of the District of Columbia Statutory and common tort law of the District of Columbia –Violence against women, wrongful death, battery, assault, arbitrary arrest and detention, false imprisonment, intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence per se, negligent hiring, negligent supervision, conversion, aiding and abetting

4. III. Legal Issues A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction B. Choice of Law 1. punitive damages 2. Indonesian v. U.S. law 3. U.S. federal v. state law

5. IV. Failure to State a Claim A. No valid legal claim made by plaintiffs B. Foreign Affairs Doctrine 1. state law preempted by federal 2. Exxon does not want to pay wrongful death with punitive damages with punitive damages C. Failure to Allege Causation 1.Exxon was not employer of military 2. Employee v. independent contractor

6. IV. Failure to State a Claim C. Failure to Allege Causation 3. Exxon did not “control” military; they were IC 4. Exception of being responsible, even without control, for inherently dangerous work; Exxon did not consider work inherently dangerous D. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 1. Exxon did not cause the distress 2. Intentional conduct of Indonesian military did