1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1:22-cv-22696

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESS ENTITIES

IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A, 

Defendants.

______________________________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND COUNTERFEITING

Plaintiff, Exxon Mobil Corporation (“ExxonMobil”) sues Defendants, the Individuals and 

Business Entities identified on Schedule “A” (collectively “Defendants”), and alleges:

Parties

1. Plaintiff, Exxon Mobil Corporation, is a New Jersey corporation having its 

principal place of business at 5959 Las Colinas Boulevard, Irving, Texas 75039.

2. Defendants are individuals and business entities, each of whom, upon information 

and belief, either reside and/or operate in Florida, redistribute products from the same or similar 

sources in Florida, and/or ship their goods from the same or similar sources in Florida to consumers 

as well as shipping and fulfillment centers within the United States to redistribute their products 

from those locations. Defendants have the capacity to be sued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 17(b). 

3. Defendants are the past and present controlling forces behind the sale of products 

using counterfeits and infringements of ExxonMobil’s trademarks as described herein and each of 

Case 1:22-cv-22696-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2022 Page 1 of 18
2

the individual defendants directs, controls, ratifies, participates in, or is the active, moving force 

behind the activity complained of herein.

Nature of Action and Jurisdiction

4. This is an action for federal trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 

1125, and other related claims under federal and Florida law.

5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 15 U.S.C. § 1121, 

and Title 28 of the United States Code, §§ 1331 and 1338 because of claims arising under the 

Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, et. seq.), and pendant jurisdiction over the remaining claims 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

6. The matter in controversy in this action exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, 

exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states. Accordingly, this Court 

also has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

7. Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida under Fla. Stat. §§ 

48.193(1)(a)(1) and (2) because Defendants are operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on 

a business in this state or has an office in this state, and because Defendants are committing tortious 

acts within this State including trademark infringement, dilution, counterfeiting, and unfair 

competition likely to cause consumer confusion and causing Plaintiff to suffer harm in Florida. 

The events giving rise to this Complaint have occurred in this State and have effects in this State 

and District.

8. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because, upon 

information and belief, Defendants reside in this District and regularly conduct business in Florida

and in this District, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the acts complained of herein 

occurred in this District. 

Case 1:22-cv-22696-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2022 Page 2 of 18
3

Facts

I. ExxonMobil’s Trademarks 

9. ExxonMobil, along with its predecessors and affiliates, is the world's largest 

publicly traded international oil and gas company.

10. Since at least the 1930s, ExxonMobil or its predecessors have continuously used the 

MOBIL trademark in commerce in connection with a wide variety of products and services, including 

the sale and promotion of automotive service station services, motor fuels, motor oils, lubricants, 

vehicle lubrication services, and other petroleum products, and various other products and services.

11. MOBIL branded stations and lubrication centers are among the most widespread 

and recognizable service stations in the United States. There are thousands of MOBIL branded 

retail outlets in the United States with billions of dollars in annual sales. 

12. Over the years, ExxonMobil has invested many millions of dollars advertising and 

promoting its MOBIL branded goods and services, and has expended great efforts to ensure that 

its products and services meet high standards of quality, safety, and performance. As a result, 

ExxonMobil has developed goodwill, public recognition, and strong rights in its marks, which 

consumers have come to know and trust as symbols of quality and value.

13. Since at least 1966, ExxonMobil has used in commerce the MOBIL mark in a 

distinctive composition, with blue lettering for all letters except the “o” which is presented in red, 

such as in the famous MOBIL in Red and Blue shown immediately below (the “MOBIL Logo”).

Case 1:22-cv-22696-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2022 Page 3 of 18
4

14. For many years, ExxonMobil has also widely and continuously used in commerce 

the marks MOBIL 1, MOBIL 1 LUBE EXPRESS, DELVAC, DELVAC 1, and other related marks 

in connection with its products and services. 

15. ExxonMobil has also long been using in commerce the design of a flying horse, 

such as the famous “Pegasus” mark shown immediately below (the “Mobil Pegasus”), on or in 

connection with its products and services. 

ExxonMobil’s marks referenced in paragraphs 9 and 12-14, including the mark MOBIL, the Mobil 

Logo, MOBIL 1, MOBIL 1 LUBE EXPRESS, DELVAC, DELVAC 1, and the Mobil Pegasus, are 

hereinafter collectively referred to as the “MOBIL Marks.” 

16. Relevant consumers recognize and rely upon the MOBIL Marks as indicators of 

origin and as symbols of quality and value.

17. The MOBIL Marks are inherently distinctive, serving to identify and indicate the 

source of ExxonMobil’s products and services to the consuming public, and to distinguish its 

products and services from those of others.

18. Additionally and alternatively, as a result of ExxonMobil’s frequent and 

widespread usage and promotion of the MOBIL Marks, they have become distinctive to designate 

ExxonMobil’s goods and services, to distinguish ExxonMobil’s goods and services from the goods 

and services of others, and to distinguish the source or origin of ExxonMobil’s goods and services.

Case 1:22-cv-22696-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2022 Page 4 of 18
5 

19. ExxonMobil has invested considerable effort and resources in developing, using, 

advertising, and promoting the MOBIL Marks in the United States, and over an extensive period 

of time. Sales under the MOBIL Marks have been immense.

20. As a result of frequent and widespread use and promotion by ExxonMobil, the 

MOBIL Marks have become well-known and widely recognized by consumers in the State of 

Florida and throughout the United States to indicate the source of ExxonMobil’s goods and 

services.

21. As a result of ExxonMobil’s extensive usage and promotion of the MOBIL Marks, 

ExxonMobil has developed valuable goodwill in the marks. 

22. The MOBIL Marks are famous.

23. ExxonMobil owns numerous federal trademark registrations for the MOBIL Marks, 

including the following: 

Mark U.S. Reg. No. Goods/Services

MOBIL 337,002 Lubricating oils and greases (Int’l Class 4)

MOBIL 1,046,513 Automotive service station services (Int’l Class 37)

MOBIL Logo 1,015,027 Antifreeze and coolants; automatic transmission 

fluid (Int’l Class 1)

Circulating oil; engine oil; gasoline; greases; 

lubricating oil; machinery oil; metal processing oil; 

motor oil; penetrating oil (Int’l Class 4)

MOBIL Logo 1,049,824 Automotive service station services including car 

wash services and emergency road services (Int’l 

Class 37)

MOBIL Logo 3,787,476 Motor fuels, namely, gasoline and diesel fuels (Int’l 

Class 4)

MOBIL 1 1,044,603 Synthesized engine lubricant (Int’l Class 4)

6,006,277 Oil filters (Int’l Class 7)

Case 1:22-cv-22696-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2022 Page 5 of 18
6 

5,874,430 Oil filters (Int’l Class 7)

MOBIL 1 LUBE 

EXPRESS

4,960,351 Automobile lubrication services (Int’l Class 37) 

DELVAC 195,167 Lubricating oils (Int’l Class 4)

DELVAC 5,889,196 Transmission fluids; antifreeze; coolants (Int’l 

Class 1)

DELVAC 1 1,254,259 Synthesized engine oils (Int’l Class 4)

MOBIL DELVAC 

MODERN

6,789,852 Industrial oils and greases; lubricants; motor oils 

(Int’l Class 4)

355,206 Lubricating oils (Int’l Class 4)

5,404,613 Transmission fluids; hydraulic fluids; antifreeze; 

coolants (Int’l Class 1) 

Motor oils; lubricating oils; lubricating greases; 

automotive, marine and industrial lubricants; 

synthetic automotive engine lubricants; waxes; 

motor fuels, namely, gasoline and diesel fuels (Int’l 

Class 4)

Attached hereto as Exhibit are true and correct copies of these federal registrations.

24. The MOBIL Marks, as represented by Federal Registration Nos. 195,167, 337,002, 

355,206, 1,015,027, 1,044,603, 1,046,513, 1,049,824, 1,254,259, and 3,787,476, have achieved 

incontestable status under 15 U.S.C. § 1065. Such registrations constitute conclusive evidence of the 

validity of the registered marks and of the registration of the marks, of the registrant’s ownership of 

the marks, and of the registrant’s exclusive right to use the registered marks in commerce, pursuant 

to 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b).

II. Defendants’ Unauthorized Use of ExxonMobil’s Trademarks 

25. Defendants, without authority, have offered and are offering for sale or promoting 

non-genuine lubricating oil in packaging bearing the MOBIL Marks, or spurious marks identical 

or confusingly similar to or substantially indistinguishable from, the MOBIL Marks (the 

Case 1:22-cv-22696-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2022 Page 6 of 18
7

“Counterfeit Marks”), including exporting such non-genuine counterfeit products and promoting 

such products on their website (screenshots included in Schedule “A”) and elsewhere. Examples 

of such non-genuine counterfeit products bearing the Counterfeit Marks sold by Defendants are 

shown directly below. The products bearing the Counterfeit Marks are referred to herein as the 

“Counterfeit Products.” 

 

26. Defendants are not an authorized ExxonMobil dealer and have no permission to 

sell or offer for sale or promote ExxonMobil’s lubricating oils or other products to customers, or 

to use the MOBIL Marks.

27. Defendants have set out on a deliberate course of conduct to deceive consumers 

into believing that it or the Counterfeit Products are connected, associated, or affiliated with 

ExxonMobil in order to trade on ExxonMobil’s valuable goodwill. Defendants’ efforts to deceive 

the public into believing that it or the Counterfeit Products are affiliated with or authorized by 

ExxonMobil include Defendants’ intentional use of the Counterfeit Marks in commerce by selling 

the Counterfeit Products, even though Defendants have no permission to do so and is not currently 

affiliated with ExxonMobil in any way.

28. Defendants’ use of the Counterfeit Marks is without the permission or authority of 

ExxonMobil.

Case 1:22-cv-22696-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2022 Page 7 of 18
8

29. Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Counterfeit Marks began after the MOBIL 

Marks became famous.

III. Effect of Defendants’ Unlawful Activities on ExxonMobil and the Consuming Public

30. Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Counterfeit Marks and offering for sale of the 

Counterfeit Products is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive customers and 

potential customers of the parties as to some affiliation, connection, or association of Defendants’ 

goods and services with ExxonMobil, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of Defendants’ 

goods or services offered by ExxonMobil.

31. Defendants’ use of the Counterfeit Marks on the Counterfeit Products falsely 

indicates to the purchasing public that Defendants, their business, and their goods or services 

originate with ExxonMobil, or are affiliated, connected, or associated with ExxonMobil, or are 

sponsored, endorsed, or approved by ExxonMobil, or are in some manner related to ExxonMobil 

or its goods or services.

32. Defendants’ use of the Counterfeit Marks falsely or misleadingly describes and 

represents facts with respect to Defendants and their goods and services.

33. Defendants’ use of the Counterfeit Marks enables Defendants to trade on and 

receive the benefit and goodwill built up at great labor and expense over many years by 

ExxonMobil, and to gain acceptance for Defendants’ business not solely on Defendants’ own 

merits, but on the reputation and goodwill of ExxonMobil and its marks, goods, and services.

34. Defendants’ use of the Counterfeit Marks enables Defendants to palm off their 

goods on the unsuspecting public as those meeting ExxonMobil’s quality control standards.

35. Defendants’ use of the Counterfeit Marks removes from ExxonMobil the ability to 

control the nature and quality of goods provided under the MOBIL Marks, and places the valuable 

Case 1:22-cv-22696-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2022 Page 8 of 18
9

reputation and goodwill of ExxonMobil in the hands of Defendants, over whom ExxonMobil has 

no control. 

36. As a result of Defendants’ use of the Counterfeit Marks, Defendants are being 

unjustly enriched at the expense of ExxonMobil and the public.

37. On information and belief, Defendants’ payment and financial accounts, including 

but not limited to those specifically set forth on Schedule “A,” are being used by Defendants to 

accept, receive, and deposit profits from Defendants’ trademark counterfeiting and infringing and 

unfairly competitive activities.

38. Further, Defendants are likely to transfer or secret their assets to avoid payment of 

any monetary judgment awarded to ExxonMobil.

39. ExxonMobil is suffering irreparable injury and has suffered substantial damages 

because of Defendants’ unauthorized and wrongful use of the MOBIL Marks. If Defendants’

counterfeiting and infringing, and unfairly competitive activities are not preliminarily and 

permanently enjoined by this Court, ExxonMobil and the consuming public will continue to be 

harmed.

40. Further, unless restrained by this Court, these acts of Defendants will continue, and 

they will continue to cause irreparable injury to ExxonMobil and to the public, for which there is 

no adequate remedy at law.

IV. Willful Nature of Defendants’ Wrongful Acts

41. Defendants’ acts of infringement, dilution, counterfeiting, and unfair competition 

complained of herein have been malicious, fraudulent, deliberate, willful, intentional, and in bad 

faith, with full knowledge and conscious disregard of ExxonMobil’s rights. In view of the 

Case 1:22-cv-22696-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2022 Page 9 of 18
10

egregious nature of Defendants’ actions, this is an exceptional case within the meaning of Section 

35(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).

COUNT I

Federal Trademark Infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114(1))

42. ExxonMobil reasserts paragraphs 1-41 as though set forth in full herein.

43. The acts of Defendants complained of herein constitute infringement of 

ExxonMobil’s federally registered trademarks in violation of Section 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 1114.

44. Defendants’ acts of infringement have been willful and in bad faith, making this an 

exceptional case under 15 U.S.C. § 1117. 

45. As a proximate result of the acts of Defendants as alleged herein, ExxonMobil has 

suffered and will continue to suffer great damage to its trademarks, business, goodwill, reputation, 

and profits.

46. ExxonMobil has no adequate remedy at law for the infringement of its trademarks 

alleged herein. Unless Defendants are enjoined by this Court, ExxonMobil will continue to be 

damaged by Defendants’ acts of federal trademark infringement and will suffer irreparable harm. 

COUNT II

Violation of Lanham Act § 1125(a) )

47. ExxonMobil reasserts paragraphs 1-41 as though set forth in full herein.

48. The acts of Defendants complained of herein constitute trademark infringement, 

false designations of origin, false or misleading descriptions or representations of fact and unfair 

competition in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).

Case 1:22-cv-22696-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2022 Page 10 of 18
11

49. ExxonMobil has been damaged by Defendants’ acts of trademark infringement, 

false designations of origin, false or misleading descriptions or representations of fact and unfair 

competition.

50. Defendants’ acts of trademark and trade dress infringement, false designations of 

origin, false or misleading descriptions or representations of fact and unfair competition have been 

willful and in bad faith, making this an exceptional case under 15 U.S.C. § 1117.

51. As a proximate result of the acts of Defendants as alleged herein, ExxonMobil has 

suffered and will continue to suffer great damage to its trademarks, business, goodwill, reputation, 

and profits. 

52. ExxonMobil has no adequate remedy at law for the infringement of its trademarks 

alleged herein. Unless Defendants are enjoined by this Court, ExxonMobil will continue to be 

damaged by Defendants’ acts of federal trademark infringement and will suffer irreparable harm.

COUNT III

Federal Trademark Counterfeiting (15 U.S.C. § 1114)

53. ExxonMobil reasserts paragraphs 1-41 as though set forth in full herein.

54. The acts of Defendants complained of herein, namely, the unauthorized use of the 

Counterfeit Marks, or marks or trade dress confusingly similar thereto, on or in connection with 

the Counterfeit Products, constitute use of counterfeit marks in advertising and on or in connection 

with the sale, marketing, offering for sale and distribution of products and services in commerce. 

55. Defendants are intentionally using the MOBIL Marks knowing that it was selling 

or offering to sell counterfeit products and services.

56. The acts of Defendants complained of herein constitute counterfeiting in violation 

of 15 U.S.C. § 1114, and have been willful and in bad faith, making this an exceptional case under 

15 U.S.C. § 1117.

Case 1:22-cv-22696-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2022 Page 11 of 18
12

57. As a proximate result of the acts of Defendants as alleged herein, ExxonMobil has 

suffered and will continue to suffer great damage to its trademarks, trade dress, business, goodwill, 

reputation and profits. 

58. ExxonMobil has no adequate remedy at law for the trademark counterfeiting 

alleged herein. Unless Defendants are enjoined by this Court, ExxonMobil will continue to be 

damaged by Defendants’ acts of trademark counterfeiting and will suffer irreparable harm. 

COUNT IV

Federal Trademark Dilution (15 U.S.C. § 1125(c))

59. ExxonMobil reasserts paragraphs 1-41 as though set forth in full herein.

60. The acts of Defendants complained of herein constitute dilution by blurring and 

dilution by tarnishment of ExxonMobil’s famous MOBIL Marks in violation of Section 43(c) of 

the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).

61. Defendants willfully intended to trade on the recognition of the famous MOBIL 

Marks and to harm the reputation of the famous MOBIL Marks.

62. As a proximate result of the acts of Defendants as alleged herein, ExxonMobil has 

suffered and will continue to suffer great damage to its trademarks, trade dress, business, goodwill, 

reputation and profits.

63. ExxonMobil has no adequate remedy at law for the dilution of its trademarks as 

alleged herein. Unless Defendants are enjoined by this Court, ExxonMobil will continue to be 

damaged by Defendants’ acts of federal trademark and trade dress dilution and will suffer 

irreparable harm.

COUNT V

Unfair Competition under Florida Law

64. ExxonMobil reasserts paragraphs 1-41 as though set forth in full herein.

Case 1:22-cv-22696-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2022 Page 12 of 18
13

65. The acts of Defendants complained of herein constitute trademark infringement 

and unfair competition in violation of Fla. Stat. § 495.161 and the common law of the State of 

Florida.

COUNT VI

Dilution under Florida Law

66. ExxonMobil reasserts paragraphs 1-41 as though set forth in full herein.

67. The acts of Defendants complained of herein constitute trademark dilution in 

violation of Fla. Stat. § 495.151.

COUNT VII

Unjust Enrichment

68. ExxonMobil reasserts paragraphs 1-41 as though set forth in full herein.

69. The acts of Defendants complained of herein constitute unjust enrichment of 

Defendants at ExxonMobil’s expense in violation of the common law of Florida.

70. ExxonMobil has been damaged by Defendants’ acts of unjust enrichment.

COUNT VIII

Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices (Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et. seq.)

71. ExxonMobil reasserts paragraphs 1-41 as though set forth in full herein.

72. By unlawfully capitalizing on and misappropriating ExxonMobil’s well-known 

marks and reputation, including trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair 

competition, Defendants have engaged in unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or 

practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of its trade or commerce in 

violation of Fla. Stat. § 501.204.

73. ExxonMobil has suffered actual damages proximately caused by Defendants’ 

deceptive and unfair trade practices.

Case 1:22-cv-22696-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2022 Page 13 of 18
14

74. Customers and potential customers are also being harmed because they are being 

misled and confused by Defendants’ activities.

75. ExxonMobil and customers and potential customers are being irreparably harmed 

by Defendants’ deceptive and unfair trade practices and do not have an adequate remedy at law. 

76. ExxonMobil is entitled to injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and actual damages 

under Fla. Stat. § 501.211 and attorneys’ fees under § 501.2105.

Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, as to all claims in this Complaint, ExxonMobil demands the following:

a) A Final Judgment finding that Defendants have: i) infringed the Federal 

Registration Nos. 195,167, 337,002, 355,206, 1,015,027, 1,044,603, 1,046,513, 1,049,824, 

1,254,259, 3,787,476, 4,960,351, 5,404,613, 5,874,430, 5,889,196, 6,006,277, and 6,789,852 under 

15 U.S.C. § 1114(1); ii) engaged in unfair competition, including trademark infringement, false 

designations of origin, or false or misleading descriptions or representations of fact under 15 

U.S.C. § 1125(a); iii) engaged in federal trademark counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. § 1114; iv) 

engaged federal trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) and Fla. Stat. § 495.151; v) engaged 

in unfair competition under Fla. Stat. § 495.161 and the common law of Florida; v) engaged in 

deceptive and unfair trade practices under Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et. seq.; and vi) been unjustly 

enriched at ExxonMobil’s expense under Florida law;

b) a permanent and preliminary injunction under 15 U.S.C. § 1116, Fla. Stat. § 

495.141, and Florida law prohibiting and restraining Defendants, Defendants’ agents, servants, 

employees, attorneys, related companies, and all those persons in active concert or participation 

with them, from infringing the MOBIL Marks, including using any element thereof, and any other 

mark or designation confusingly similar thereto;

Case 1:22-cv-22696-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2022 Page 14 of 18
15

c) an injunction permanently enjoining and restraining Defendants, their managers, 

members, officers, employees, agents, servants, attorneys, successors and assigns, related 

companies and all those persons in active concert or participation with them, and all of them, from 

using the MOBIL Marks, and from using any other designation or mark, including in search engine 

optimization and metatags, that contains the MOBIL Marks or any formative variation thereof, or 

that is otherwise confusingly similar to the MOBIL Marks;

d) an Order requiring Defendants to file with this Court and to serve upon 

ExxonMobil, within thirty (30) days after the entry and service on Defendants of an injunction, a 

report in writing and under oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendants 

have complied with the injunction; 

e) an award of compensatory damages and special damages as a result of Defendants’ 

infringement, dilution, counterfeiting, false designations of origin, false or misleading descriptions 

or representations of fact, unfair competition, and unfair and deceptive business practices and that 

said damages be trebled;

f) disgorgement of Defendants’ profits plus actual damages to ExxonMobil and costs, 

increased by an amount equal to three times such damages because of Defendants’ willful 

violations under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) and (b) and Fla. Stat. § 495.141;

g) an award of actual damages under Fla. Stat. § 501.211(2);

h) an Order requiring Defendants to file with this Court and to serve upon ExxonMobil

an accounting to determine Defendants’ profits resulting from Defendants’ activities, and that such 

profits be paid over to ExxonMobil, increased as the Court finds to be just under the circumstances 

of this case or trebled under 15 U.S.C. § 1117 as a result of Defendants’ counterfeiting;

Case 1:22-cv-22696-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2022 Page 15 of 18
16

i) alternatively, if greater, an award of statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117 as 

a result of Defendants’ counterfeiting;

j) an award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest under 15 

U.S.C. § 1117, Fla. Stat. § 495.141, Fla. Stat. § 501.211(2), Fla. Stat. § 501.2105, and as otherwise 

permitted under the law;

k) an award of costs and prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and 

l) such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and proper.

Case 1:22-cv-22696-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2022 Page 16 of 18
17

Jury Demand

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), ExxonMobil demands a trial by jury on all issues triable of 

right by a jury.

Respectfully submitted,

Date: August 25, 2022 By: /s/ Matthew S. Nelles

Matthew S. Nelles

Florida Bar No. 009245

mnelles@nklawflorida.com

NELLES KOSTENCKI, PLLC

Corporate Center 

110 E. Broward Boulevard, Suite 670

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

O: (954) 246-4800; F: (954) 246-4900

E: paralegal@nklawflorida.com

Stephen P. Meleen

Texas Bar No. 00795776

smeleen@pirkeybarber.com

Tyson D. Smith

Texas Bar No. 24079362

tsmith@pirkeybarber.com

PIRKEY BARBER PLLC

1801 E. 6th Street, Suite 300

Austin, TX 78702

Telephone: (512) 322-5200

Fax: (512) 322-5201

(Pending Pro Hac Vice)

ATTORNEYS FOR 

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION

Case 1:22-cv-22696-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2022 Page 17 of 18
18

SCHEDULE “A”

[This page is the subject of Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal. As such, this document

has been omitted in accordance with L.R. 5.4(b)(1)]

Case 1:22-cv-22696-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2022 Page 18 of 18