Spectrum Stores Inc. v. Citgo Petroleum Corp..
Decision Date | 08 February 2011 |
Docket Number | No. 09–20084.,09–20084. |
Citation | 632 F.3d 938 |
Parties | SPECTRUM STORES, INC.; Major Oil Company, Inc.; W.C. Rice Oil Company; Fast Break Foods, LLC, Plaintiffs–Appellants,v.CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION; Saudi Arabian Oil Company, doing business as Saudi Aramco; Saudi Petroleum International, Inc.; Aramco Services Company; Saudi Refining, Inc.; Motiva Enterprises, LLC; Petroleos De Venezuela SA; PDV America, Inc.; PDV Midwest Refining, LLC; PDV Holding, Inc.; Open Joint Stock Company, “Oil Company Lukoil”, also known as Lukoil Holdings, also known as Lukoil OAO, also known as OAO Lukoil; Lukoil Americas Corporation; Getty Petroleum Marketing; Lukoil International Trading and Supply Company; Lukoil Pan Americas, LLC, Defendants–Appellees.Spectrum Stores, Inc.; Major Oil Company, Inc.; W.C. Rice Oil Company, Inc., Plaintiffs–Appellants,v.Citgo Petroleum Corporation, Defendant–Appellee.Fast Break Foods, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.Saudi Arabian Oil Company, doing business as Saudi Aramco; Saudi Petroleum International, Inc.; Aramco Services Company; Saudi Refining, Inc.; Motiva Enterprises, LLC; Petroleos De Venezuela SA; PDV America, Inc.; Citgo Petroleum Corporation; PDV Midwest Refining, LLC; PDV Holding, Inc., Defendants–Appellees.Green Oil Co., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.Saudi Arabian Oil Company, doing business as Saudi Aramco; Saudi Petroleum International, Inc.; Aramco Services Company; Saudi Refining, Inc.; Motiva Enterprises, LLC; Petroleos De Venezuela SA; PDV America, Inc.; Citgo Petroleum Corporation; PDV Holding, Inc.; PDV Midwest Refining, LLC; Open Joint Stock Company, “Oil Company Lukoil” also known as Lukoil Holdings, also known as Lukoil OAO, also known as OAO Lukoil; Lukoil Americas Corporation; Getty Petroleum Marketing, Inc.; Lukoil Pan Americas, LLC, Defendants–Appellees.Countrywide Petroleum Co.; Fast Break Foods, LLC, Plaintiffs–Appellants,v.Petroleos De Venezuela SA; PDV America, Inc.; Citgo Petroleum Corporation; PDV Holding, Inc.; PDV Midwest Refining, LLC, Defendants–Appellees.Fast Break Foods, LLC, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.Central Ohio Energy, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; Fast Break Foods, LLC, Plaintiffs–Appellants,v.Saudi Arabian Oil Company, doing business as Saudi Aramco; Saudi Petroleum International, Inc.; Aramco Services Company; Saudi Refining, Inc.; Motiva Enterprises, LLC; Petroleos De Venezuela SA; PDV America, Inc.; Citgo Petroleum Corporation; PDV Holding, Inc.; PDV Midwest Refining, LLC; Open Joint Stock Company, “Oil Company Lukoil”, also known as Lukoil Holdings, also known as Lukoil OAO, also known as OAO Lukoil; Lukoil Americas Corporation; Lukoil Pan Americas, LLC; Getty Petroleum Marketing, Inc., Defendants–Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
William T. Gotfryd, Arthur T. Susman, Susman, Heffner & Hurst, L.L.P., Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs–Appellants.
Lauren Blair, Pedersen & Houpt, P.C., Chicago, IL, John A. Cochrane, Naples, FL, James Bernard Sloan, Lake Forest, IL, for Fast Break Foods, LLC.William A. Isaacson, Hamish PM Hume (argued), Boies, Schiller & Flexner, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Countrywide Petroleum Co.Nathan P. Eimer (argued), Chad J. Doellinger, Andrew G. Klevorn, Eimer, Stahl, Klevorn & Solberg, L.L.P., Chicago, IL, Richard, N. Carrell, Fulbright & Jaworski, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Citgo Petroleum Co.Carolyn B. Lamm (argued), Hansel Tuan Pham, Anne Davies Smith, Jonathan C. Ulrich, White & Case, L.L.P., Washington, DC, Robert A. Milne, Raj Suresh Gandesha, Robert A. Milne, Thomas J. O'Sullivan, John D. Rue, White & Case, L.L.P., New York City, Warren W. Harris, Carrin Foreman Patman, Bracewell & Giuliani, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendants–Appellees.Mark Scott Bernstein, Barack, Ferrazzano, Kirschbaum & Nagelberg, Chicago, IL, for Motiva Enterprises, L.L.C.Tom McNamara, Dale R. Harris, Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP, Denver, CO, for PDV America, Inc. and PDV Holding, Inc.James Patrick Tuite, Catherine Fairley Spillman, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Lukoil Americas Corp., Getty Petroleum Marketing, Inc. and Lukoil Pan Americas, LLC.Douglas Neal Letter, Lewis Stanley Yelun, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civ. Div., App. Staff, Washington, DC, for U.S.John Barney Beckworth, Watt, Beckworth, Thompson & Henneman, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Fed. Republic of Nigeria.Thomas Miles Farrell, Nickens, Keeton, Lawless, Farrell & Flack, Houston, TX, for People's Democratic Republic of Algeria.Neil H. Koslowe, Shearman & Sterling, Washington, DC, for United Arab Emirates.Charles Eric Talisman, Patton Boggs, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for State of Qatar.Douglas R. Cox, Geoffrey M. Sigler, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Government of State of Kuwait.William Allen Gage, Jr., Ann Elizabeth Webb, Buck, Keenan, Gage, Little & Lindley, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Republic of Iraq.Thomas T. Hutcheson, Winstead, P.C., Justin Joseph Presnal, Fisher, Boyd, Brown, Boudreaux & Huguenard, Houston, TX, for Republic of Indonesia.Matthew D. Slater, Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for United Mexican States.Gregory Scott Coleman, Sr. Atty., Edward Caldwell Dawson, Marc S. Tabolsky, Yetter Coleman, L.L.P., Austin, TX, for Russian Federation.William Leitzsey Monts, III, Catherine Emily Stetson, Hogan Lovells, US, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.Before JOLLY, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge:
This case involves two class actions brought by gasoline retailers against oil production companies (most of which are owned in whole or in part by OPEC member nations), alleging antitrust violations. After consolidation of the suits for disposition of pre-trial matters, the oil production companies moved to dismiss. The district court granted dismissal on the ground that disposing of the case on the merits would require the court to pass judgment on the actions of other sovereign nations, which is proscribed by the act of state doctrine. Alternatively, the district court held that dismissal was also warranted by the political question doctrine. The gasoline retailers appealed.
Because the political question doctrine is jurisdictional, we address it first. When we do so, we discern that the complaints before us effectively challenge the structure of OPEC and its relation to the worldwide production of petroleum. Convinced that these matters deeply implicate concerns of foreign and defense policy, concerns that constitutionally belong in the executive and legislative departments, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims. We hold alternatively that the complaints seek a remedy that is barred by the act of state doctrine, that is, an order and judgment that would interfere with sovereign nations' control over their own natural resources. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment dismissing the complaints.
Several U.S. gasoline retailers and other purchasers of petroleum products allege Sherman Act and Clayton Act violations by oil production companies. The Spectrum Appellants1 sued Citgo Petroleum Corporation (Citgo); the Consolidated Appellants2 sued the Saudi Aramco Appellees, 3 the Citgo Appellees,4 the Lukoil Appellees,5 and Motiva Enterprises, LLC (Motiva).6 Five suits from different districts were consolidated in the Southern District of Texas for disposition of pre-trial matters. At the time of the appealed-from decision, only two live complaints were before the district court.7 The Spectrum Appellants decided to stand on their original complaint, while the Consolidated Appellants chose to file an amended, consolidated class-action complaint in place of their individual complaints.
The claims raised by Appellants challenge the traditional structure of international energy policy. The global economy is driven by petroleum-based products, and countries with bountiful petroleum resources have attempted to secure the best market prices for their crude oil. With this goal in mind, several oil-rich nations formed the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (“OPEC”) in the 1960s.8 OPEC's official mission is “to coordinate and unify the petroleum policies of its Member Countries and ensure the stabilization of oil markets in order to secure an efficient, economic and regular supply of petroleum to consumers, a steady income to producers and a fair return on capital for those investing in the petroleum industry.” See Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC: Our Mission, http:// www. opec. org/ opec_ web/ en/ about_ us/ 23. htm (last visited December 30, 2010).
In the years since OPEC's inception, its members have developed nationally owned oil production companies, and these companies have formed and acquired subsidiaries, many of which operate within the United States. OPEC member nations attend periodic meetings at the organization's headquarters in Vienna, Austria to formulate policy. In recent years, some privately owned corporations have begun attending OPEC meetings. The Appellants in this case allege that the national oil companies, as well as their subsidiaries, have conspired with OPEC member nations to fix prices of crude oil and refined petroleum products (“RPPs”) in the United States, primarily by limiting crude-oil production—that is, by controlling the spigot.
The Spectrum Appellants accuse Citgo of conspiring with OPEC member nations “to raise, fix, and stabilize the price of gasoline and other oil-based products in the United States.” Citgo is wholly owned by Venezuela, through PDVSA, the national oil company of Venezuela. The Spectrum Complaint asserts three counts against Citgo under § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and § 4 of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Carter
...contention for plain error in the alternative after concluding that the contention was waived); cf. Spectrum Stores, Inc. v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. , 632 F.3d 938, 954 (5th Cir. 2011) (after determining that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, holding in the alternative th......
-
Garcia v. Thaler
...could be construed as a “consensus” reflecting a negative legislative view of the proposal. See Spectrum Stores, Inc. v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 632 F.3d 938, 953 n. 15 (5th Cir.2011) (holding the failure of Congress to pass proposed federal legislation creating private causes of action by c......
-
Kerr v. Hickenlooper
...the mere fact that a claim is statutory does not automatically obviate political question concerns. See Spectrum Stores, Inc. v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 632 F.3d 938, 943 (5th Cir.2011) (declining to adjudicate “challenge [to] the structure of OPEC and its relation to the worldwide productio......
-
In re Fresh & Process Potatoes Antitrust Litig.
...of the courts in such a decision might frustrate the conduct of United States foreign policy.” Spectrum Stores Inc. v. Citgo Petroleum Co., 632 F.3d 938, 954 (5th Cir.2011) (Internal quotations and citations omitted). UPGC contends that the Act of State Doctrine warrants dismissal because a......
-
Are Federal Contractors Immunized From Vaccination Litigation? Mitigating The Risk Of Civil Liabilities Arising Out Of The COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
...that would interfere with a policy matter committed to the Executive Branch. See, e.g., Spectrum Stores v. Citgo Petro. Corp., 632 F.3d 938, 956 (5th Cir. 2011) (“Any ruling on the merits of this case would, by its core essence, impermissibly interfere with the Executive Branch’s longstandi......
-
FROM HUMPHREY'S EXECUTOR TO SEILA LAW: ENDING DUAL FEDERAL ANTITRUST AUTHORITY.
...(153) See Interview by Douglas H. Ginsburg with Makan Delrahim, supra note 63; see also Spectrum Stores, Inc. v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 632 F.3d 938, 943 (5th Cir. 2011) (holding that a private antitrust suit against foreign, nationally owned oil companies engaged in price fixing "deeply im......
-
Foreign States’ Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Antitrust Cases
...note 3.51. F. Hoffmann- La Roche Ltd v. Empagran SA (Empagran II), supra note 49.52. Spectrum Stores, Inc. v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 632 F. 3d 938 (5th Cir. 2011).53. For discussion from various perspectives, see PAUL LUGARD, THE INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION NETWORK AT TEN: ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND......