Summary
affirming the district court's dismissal with prejudice
Summary of this case from William v. Aes Corp.Opinion
Nos. 02–56256 02–56390 09–56381.
2013-06-28
Alexis Holyweek SAREI; Paul E. Nerau; Thomas Tamuasi; Phillip Miriori; Gregory Kopa; Methodius Nesiko; Aloysius Moses; Rapheal Niniku; Gabriel Tareasi; Linus Takinu; Leo Wuis; Michael Akope; Benedtic Pisi; Thomas Kobuko; John Tamuasi; Norman Mouvo; John Osani; Ben Korus; Namira Kawona; Joanne Bosco; John Pigolo; Magdalene Pigolo, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. RIO TINTO, PLC; Rio Tinto Limited, Defendants–Appellees. Alexis Holyweek Sarei; Paul E. Nerau; Thomas Tamuasi; Phillip Miriori; Gregory Kopa; Methodius Nesiko; Aloysius Moses; Rapheal Niniku; Gabriel Tareasi; Linus Takinu; Leo Wuis; Michael Akope; Benedict Pisi; Thomas Kobuko; John Tamuasi; Norman Mouvo; John Osani; Ben Korus; Namira Kawona; Joanne Bosco; John Pigolo; Magdalene Pigolo, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. Rio Tinto, PLC; Rio Tinto Limited, Defendants–Appellants. Alexis Holyweek Sarei; Paul E. Nerau; Thomas Tamuasi; Phillip Miriori; Gregory Kopa; Methodius Nesiko; Aloysius Moses; Rapheal Niniku; Gabriel Tareasi; Linus Takinu; Leo Wuis; Michael Akope; Benedtic Pisi; Thomas Kobuko; John Tamuasi; Norman Mouvo; John Osani; Ben Korus; Namira Kawona; Joanne Bosco; John Pigolo; Magdalene Pigolo, individually on behalf of themselves & all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. Rio Tinto, PLC; Rio Tinto Limited, Defendants–Appellants, and United States of America, Movant.
On Remand From The United States Supreme Court. D.C. No. 2:00–cv–11695–MMM–MAN, Central District of California, Los Angeles.
Before: MARY M. SCHROEDER, HARRY PREGERSON, STEPHEN REINHARDT, ANDREW J. KLEINFELD, BARRY G. SILVERMAN, M. MARGARET McKEOWN, MARSHA S. BERZON, JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, CARLOS T. BEA, and SANDRA S. IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
This case is before us after the Supreme Court's order of April 22, 2013, vacating and remanding on the basis of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1659, 185 L.Ed.2d 671 (2013). The parties have submitted supplemental briefs on the effect of that decision.
Upon due consideration, a majority of the en banc court has voted to affirm the district court's judgment of dismissal with prejudice. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.