Sequihua v. Texaco, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 January 1994 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. H-93-3432. |
| Citation | 847 F. Supp. 61 |
| Parties | Ignacio SEQUIHUA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TEXACO, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Charles B. Musslewhite, Houston, TX, for plaintiffs.
Layne Edwin Kruse, Dixie Smith, Fulbright & Jaworski, Robert Dale Topping, Texaco Inc., Houston, TX, Charles Alan Wright, Austin, TX, Patrick Carlton Appel, Myer Orlando & Evans, Houston, TX, J. Randall Miller, Stephen R. Ward, Tulsa, OK, for defendants.
Plaintiffs, residents of Ecuador and a community in that country, filed this action in state court asserting a variety of causes of action arising out of the alleged contamination of the air, ground and water in Ecuador. In addition to monetary relief, Plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring Defendants to return the land to its former condition and the imposition of a "trust fund" to be administered by the Court. The case was removed, and the Court finds that the removal was procedurally proper. The case is before the Court on various motions, including Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand and Defendants' motions to dismiss or for summary judgment. The Court has carefully reviewed the pleadings, the memoranda, and the applicable case law, and the motions are now ripe for decision.
Plaintiffs have filed a number of motions seeking stays for various reasons. Initially, Plaintiffs have moved the Court to defer ruling on the motion to remand for a period of six months during which Plaintiffs would conduct discovery. The Court finds that resolution of the motion to remand does not involve factual disputes but, instead, involves legal issues. Consequently, the motion to defer ruling for six months is denied.
Plaintiffs also seek a sixty-day stay prior to a ruling on the motions to dismiss to conduct discovery and to obtain new counsel. Again the Court notes that the motions to dismiss involve primarily legal issues which do not require discovery beyond that which would have been necessary prior to filing the lawsuit. Additionally, the motions to dismiss have been pending for more than a month and Plaintiffs were granted an extension of time to file their response. It is not explained why any necessary affidavits could not be obtained within that time. With reference to the request for a stay to obtain new counsel, the Court finds that a stay would not be appropriate. Local Rule 2.D. provides that no delay will be permitted due to a change of counsel. While Plaintiffs may move to substitute counsel as they choose, such desire for alternate lead counsel will not be a basis for delay. As a result, these motions to stay are likewise denied.
Removal of this case from state court was based on both diversity and federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiffs moved to remand, asserting that this Court lacks jurisdiction. Defendants, in their response in opposition to the motion to remand, argue that the Court has federal question jurisdiction because the lawsuit "not only raises questions of international law, but threatens to create an international incident." In this regard, the Court notes that the Republic of Ecuador has officially protested this litigation, asserting that it will do "violence" to the international legal system, and has asked that the case be dismissed. Clearly, such issues of international relations are incorporated into federal common law, which presents a federal question under § 1331. See Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 84 S.Ct. 923, 11 L.Ed.2d 804 (1964); Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos, 806 F.2d 344 (2d Cir.1986); Grynberg v. British Gas plc., 817 F.Supp. 1338 (E.D.Tex.1993). Plaintiffs in their complaint assert injuries that arose solely in Ecuador to as many as 500,000 Ecuadorans in an area that covers 1/3 of Ecuador. Plaintiffs complain about conduct which is regulated by the government in Ecuador, which is a country with its own environmental laws and regulations, a nation that owns the land at issue, and that treats all petroleum exploration and development as a "public utility" controlled by the government. Such matters affecting international law and the relationship between the United States and foreign governments give rise to federal question jurisdiction. Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, 451 U.S. 630, 101 S.Ct. 2061, 68 L.Ed.2d 500 (1981); Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 84 S.Ct. 923, 11 L.Ed.2d 804 (1964).
Additionally, there are essential elements of Plaintiffs' claims which, if "well-pleaded", require the application and resolution of the federal common law regarding foreign relations. Plaintiffs' claims of nuisance and for injunctive relief require them as part of their prima facie case to challenge the policies and regulations of Ecuador, as well as the approvals from Ecuador that Defendants received, in order to show that the conduct was improper on land owned by Ecuador. Federal question jurisdiction clearly exists where, as here, the essential elements of Plaintiffs' prima facie case necessarily involve federal international relations, such as the international law relating to the control by a foreign country over its own resources. See Grynberg, 817 F.Supp. at 1360-1363.
Lastly, Plaintiffs' request for a trust fund asks this Court to step into the shoes of the Ecuadoran Health Ministry and supervise a medical monitoring scheme of unknown cost, scope or duration for as many as 500,000 Ecuadoran citizens over the protest of the government of Ecuador. It is incomprehensible that Plaintiffs could argue this does not fully and completely involve the relationship between the United States through this Court and the Republic of Ecuador.
Based upon the important foreign policy implications of this case, upon the international legal principle that each country has the right to control its own natural resources, and the strong opposition expressed by the Republic of Ecuador to this litigation, the Court finds without reservation that Plaintiffs' state law claims, if well-pleaded, raise issues of international relations which implicate federal common law. Consequently, this Court has federal question jurisdiction and the motion to remand must be denied.1
Defendants have moved to dismiss on a number of grounds. On the basis of the comity of nations and the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the Court should not exercise its jurisdiction over this case and the motions to dismiss should be granted.
Under the doctrine known as comity of nations, a court should decline to exercise jurisdiction under certain circumstances in deference to the laws and interests of another foreign country. See Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522, 543 n. 27, 107 S.Ct. 2542, 2555 n. 27, 96 L.Ed.2d 461 (1987); Fleeger v. Clarkson Co. Ltd., 86 F.R.D. 388, 392 (N.D.Tex.1980). Section 403(3) of the Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States sets forth a number of factors to be considered in determining whether the comity of nations deference should be applied. The Ninth Circuit applied similar factors in Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of America National Trust and Savings Assn., 749 F.2d 1378 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied 472 U.S. 1032, 105 S.Ct. 3514, 87 L.Ed.2d 643 (1985), to affirm a District Court's decision not to exercise jurisdiction. Consideration of these factors leads to the inescapable conclusion that the Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over this case. The challenged activity and the alleged harm occurred entirely in Ecuador; Plaintiffs are all residents of Ecuador; Defendants are not residents of Texas; enforcement in Ecuador of any judgment issued by this Court is questionable at best; the challenged conduct is regulated by the Republic of Ecuador and exercise of jurisdiction by this Court would interfere with Ecuador's sovereign right to control its own environment and resources; and the Republic of Ecuador has expressed its strenuous objection to the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court. Indeed, none of the factors favor the exercise of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the case should be dismissed under the doctrine of comity of nations.
Defendants have also moved to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delgado v. Shell Oil Co.
...to confer federal question jurisdiction on the entire action. For this proposition defendants principally rely on Sequihua v. Texaco, Inc., 847 F.Supp. 61 (S.D.Tex.1994). Plaintiffs in Sequihua prayed for the creation of a trust fund and for court supervision of "a medical monitoring scheme......
-
In re Maxwell Communication Corp. plc, Bankruptcy No. 91B 15741. Adv. No. 92-1181A
...and (h) the likelihood of conflict with another nation. See Restatement of Foreign Relations § 403; accord Sequihua v. Texaco, Inc., 847 F.Supp. 61, 63 (S.D.Tex.1994). When an exercise of jurisdiction by each of two states is not unreasonable, but their regulations conflict, each state is r......
-
Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc.
...for the Southern District of Texas dismissed the case in favor of its being pursued in the courts of Ecuador. See Sequihua v. Texaco, Inc., 847 F.Supp. 61, 63 (S.D.Tex.1994). Here, however, the late Judge Broderick (to whom these cases were originally assigned) — while expressing doubts tha......
-
Mujica v. AirScan Inc.
...harm occurred entirely in Peru [and] Plaintiffs are all residents of Peru”), aff'd, 113 F.3d 540 (5th Cir.1997) ; Sequihua v. Texaco, Inc., 847 F.Supp. 61, 63 (S.D.Tex.1994) (declining jurisdiction under comity where challenged activity occurred entirely in Ecuador); see also Chowdhury v. W......
-
CATCH AND KILL JURISDICTION.
...kill case, Sequihua v. Texaco, from the same district. Torres v. S. Peru Copper Corp., 965 F. Supp. 895, 898 (S.D. Tex. 1995) (citing 847 F. Supp. 61, 63 (S.D. Tex. 1994)). For a related but unsuccessful version of catch and kill, consider another Peruvian smelting case, this one filed in M......
-
Chapter 24 THE ALIEN TORT STATUTE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND A CAUSE OF ACTION IN UNITED STATES COURTS FOR SUITS BY ALIENS ALLEGING TORTS IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF NATIONS
...Id. [110] Id. [111] Aquinda v. Texaco, Inc., 945 F. Supp. 625, 628 (S.D. N.Y. 1996). [112] Id. at 627 (citing Sequihua v. Texaco, Inc., 847 F. Supp. 61 (S.D. Tex. 1994)). [113] Jota, 157 F.3d at 159 n.6 (2d Cir. 1998). [114] Id. at 159; Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 506-07 (1947)......