Interesting cases from SCOTUSblog.

1. Docket: 06-1717

Name: Richlin Security Service Company v. Chertoff



Issue: Whether prevailing parties under the Equal Access to Justice Act should be compensated for the market rate of paralegal services or only for the cost of such services to the attorney. (Disclosure: Howe & Russell filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner.)


Opinion below (Federal Circuit)
Petition for certiorari
Brief in opposition
Petitioner’s reply
Amicus brief of the National Association of Legal Assistants (in support of petitioner)



Docket: 07-81



Name: Exxon Mobil v. Doe



Issue: Whether the collateral order doctrine permits an immediate appeal of a denial of a motion to dismiss on political question grounds, where the State Department has expressed concern the litigation could adversely impact U.S. interests abroad.


Opinion below (D.C. Circuit)
Petition for certiorari
Brief in opposition
Petitioner’s reply



And here is part of the court document:



Pursuant to a contract with the Indonesian government,
Exxon operates a large natural gas extraction and processing
facility in the Aceh province of Indonesia. The plaintiffs appellees
are eleven Indonesian villagers from Aceh who allege
that Exxon’s security forces committed murder, torture, sexual
assault, battery, false imprisonment, and other torts. Plaintiffs
allege that these security forces were comprised exclusively of
members of the Indonesian military, and that Exxon retained
these soldiers as guards for the natural gas facility even though
Exxon was aware that the Indonesian army had committed
human rights abuses in the past. Plaintiffs also allege that these
security forces acted under the “direction and control” of Exxon,
and that Exxon provided “weapons, funding, military
equipment, and other supplies” to these soldiers.
On June 11, 2001, the plaintiffs sued Exxon and PT Arun
LNG Company (an unrelated entity) in United States District
Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs sought relief under
the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victims Protection Act.
They also brought common law tort claims for wrongful death,
assault, battery, arbitrary arrest and detention, false
imprisonment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional
distress, negligence (in hiring and supervision), and conversion.


Their complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages,
declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, and an injunction prohibiting
the defendants from engaging in similar conduct in the future.
The defendants did not answer the complaint; rather, in October
2001, they moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that
the plaintiffs’ claims are non-justiciable political questions.