John Doe I v. Unocal Corp.

Ninth Circuit

John Doe I v. Unocal Corp.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 12, 2005

Docket00-56603

StatusPublished

This text of John Doe I v. Unocal Corp. (John Doe I v. Unocal Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John Doe I v. Unocal Corp., (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN DOE I, individually & as  Administrator of the Estate of his deceased child Baby Doe I, & on behalf of all others similarly situated; JANE DOE, I, on behalf of herself, as Adminstratrix of the Estate of her deceased child Baby Doe I, & on behalf of all others similarly situated; JOHN DOE II; JOHN DOE III; JOHN DOE IV; JOHN DOE V; JANE DOE II; JANE DOE III; JOHN DOE VI; JOHN DOE VII; JOHN Nos. 00-56603 DOE VIII; JOHN DOE IX; JOHN DOE 00-57197 X; JOHN DOE XI, on behalf of  D.C. No. themselves & all others similarly CV-96-06959- situated & Louisa Benson on RSWL behalf of herself & the general public, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNOCAL CORPORATION, a California Corporation; TOTAL S.A., a Foreign Corporation; JOHN IMLE, an individual; ROGER C. BEACH, an individual, Defendants-Appellees. 

4171 4172 DOE v. UNOCAL CORP.

JOHN ROE III; JOHN ROE VII; JOHN  Nos. 00-56628 ROE VIII; JOHN ROE X, 00-57195 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.  D.C. No. CV-96-06112- UNOCAL CORPORATION; UNION OIL RSWL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, ORDER Defendants-Appellees.  Filed April 13, 2005

Before: Mary M. Schroeder, Chief Judge, Stephen Reinhardt, Alex Kozinski, Pamela Ann Rymer, Thomas G. Nelson, A. Wallace Tashima, Susan P. Graber, M. Margaret McKeown, William A. Fletcher, Raymond C. Fisher, and Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The parties’ stipulated motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The appeals (00-56603, 00-56628, 00-57195, and 00-57197) are dismissed with prejudice. Each party is to bear its own costs.

The Appellants’ Unopposed Motion to Vacate District Court Opinion, a motion in which Appellees join, is GRANTED. The district court opinion in Doe v. Unocal Corp., 110 F.Supp.2d 1294 (C.D. Cal. 2000), is VACATED. PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN DOE I, individually & as  Administrator of the Estate of his deceased child Baby Doe I, & on behalf of all others similarly situated; JANE DOE, I, on behalf of herself, as Adminstratrix of the Estate of her deceased child Baby Doe I, & on behalf of all others similarly situated; JOHN DOE II; JOHN DOE III; JOHN DOE IV; JOHN DOE V; JANE DOE II; JANE DOE III; JOHN DOE VI; JOHN DOE VII; JOHN Nos. 00-56603 DOE VIII; JOHN DOE IX; JOHN DOE 00-57197 X; JOHN DOE XI, on behalf of  D.C. No. themselves & all others similarly CV-96-06959- situated & Louisa Benson on RSWL behalf of herself & the general public, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNOCAL CORPORATION, a California Corporation; TOTAL S.A., a Foreign Corporation; JOHN IMLE, an individual; ROGER C. BEACH, an individual, Defendants-Appellees. 

4171 4172 DOE v. UNOCAL CORP.

JOHN ROE III; JOHN ROE VII; JOHN  Nos. 00-56628 ROE VIII; JOHN ROE X, 00-57195 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.  D.C. No. CV-96-06112- UNOCAL CORPORATION; UNION OIL RSWL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, ORDER Defendants-Appellees.  Filed April 13, 2005

Before: Mary M. Schroeder, Chief Judge, Stephen Reinhardt, Alex Kozinski, Pamela Ann Rymer, Thomas G. Nelson, A. Wallace Tashima, Susan P. Graber, M. Margaret McKeown, William A. Fletcher, Raymond C. Fisher, and Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The parties’ stipulated motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The appeals (00-56603, 00-56628, 00-57195, and 00-57197) are dismissed with prejudice. Each party is to bear its own costs.

The Appellants’ Unopposed Motion to Vacate District Court Opinion, a motion in which Appellees join, is GRANTED. The district court opinion in Doe v. Unocal Corp., 110 F.Supp.2d 1294 (C.D. Cal. 2000), is VACATED. PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

John Doe I v. Unocal Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-doe-i-v-unocal-corp-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack