Chevron Corp. v. Donziger

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
Writing for the CourtKEARSE, Circuit Judge
CitationChevron Corp. v. Donziger, 833 F.3d 74 (2nd Cir. 2016)
Decision Date08 August 2016
Docket NumberAugust Term, 2014,Docket Nos. 14-0826(L),14-0832(C)
Parties Chevron Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Donziger, The Law Offices of Steven R. Donziger, Donziger & Associates, PLLC, Hugo Gerardo Camacho Naranjo, Javier Piaguaje Payaguaje, Defendants-Appellants, Stratus Consulting, Inc., Douglas Beltman, Ann Maest, Defendants-Counter-Claimants, Pablo Fajardo Mendoza, Luis Yanza, Frente De Defensa De La Amazonia aka Amazon Defense Front, Selva Viva Selviva CIA, LTDA, Maria Aguinda Salazar, Carlos Grefa Huatatoca, Catalina Antonia Aguinda Salazar, Lidia Alexandra Aguinda Aguinda, Patricio Alberto Chimbo Yumbo, Clide Ramiro Aguinda Aguinda, Luis Armando Chimbo Yumbo, Beatriz Mercedes Grefa Tanguila, Lucio Enrique Grefa Tanguila, Patricio Wilson Aguinda Aguinda, Celia Irene Viveros Cusangua, Francisco Matias Alvarado Yumbo, Francisco Alvarado Yumbo, Olga Gloria Grefa Cerda, Lorenzo José Alvarado Yumbo, Narcisa Aida Tanguila Narváez, Bertha Antonia Yumbo Tanguila, Gloria Lucrecia Tanguila Grefa, Francisco Victor Tanguila Grefa, Rosa Teresa Chimbo Tanguila, José Gabriel Revelo Llore, María Clelia Reascos Revelo, María Magdalena Rodríguez Barcenes, José Miguel Ipiales Chicaiza, Heleodoro Pataron Guaraca, Luisa Delia Tanguila Narváez, Lourdes Beatriz Chimbo Tanguila, María Hortencia Viveros Cusangua, Segundo Angel Amanta Milán, Octavio Ismael Córdova Huanca, Elias Roberto Piyahuaje Payahuaje, Daniel Carlos Lusitande Yaiguaje, Benancio Fredy Chimbo Grefa, Guillermo Vicente Payaguaje Lusitante, Delfín Leonidas Payaguaje Payaguaje, Alfredo Donaldo Payaguaje Payaguaje, Teodoro Gonzalo Piaguaje Payaguaje, Miguel Mario Payaguaje Payaguaje, Fermin Piaguaje Payaguaje, Reinaldo Lusitande Yaiguaje, Luis Agustín Payaguaje Piaguaje, Emilio Martín Lusitande Yaiguaje, Simon Lusitande Yaiguaje, Armando Wilfrido Piaguaje Payaguaje, Angel Justino Piaguage Lucitante, Defendants, Andrew Woods, Laura J. Garr, H5, Respondents.

Theodore B. Olson, Washington, D.C. (Randy M. Mastro, Andrea E. Neuman, Caitlin J. Halligan, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, New York, New York, William E. Thomson, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Los Angeles, California, on the brief), for Plaintiff-Appellee .

Deepak Gupta, Washington, D.C. (Gregory A. Beck, Jonathan E. Taylor, Gupta Beck, Washington, D.C.; Justin Marceau, John Campbell, Denver, Colorado, on the brief), for Defendants-Appellants Steven Donziger, The Law Offices of Steven R. Donziger, and Donziger & Associates, PLLC .

Burt Neuborne, New York, New York, for Defendants-Appellants Hugo Gerardo Camacho Naranjo and Javier Piaguaje Payaguaje .

Winston & Strawn, Washington, D.C. (Eric W. Bloom, Lauren B. Schuttloffel, Eric M. Goldstein, Nassim H. Hooshmandnia, of counsel), filed a brief for Amicus Curiae The Republic of Ecuador, in support of neither party .

Gross Belsky Alonso, San Francisco, California (Jonathan Moore, Terry Gross, Adam C. Belsky, Monique Alonso, San Francisco, California; Thomas Bennigson, Public Good Law Center, Berkeley, California, of counsel), filed a brief for Amici Curiae Amnesty International, Amazon Watch, 350 Bay Area, Center for Environmental Health, CT Citizen Action Group, Food and Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, Global Exchange, The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice, The International Accountability Project, Justice in Nigeria Now!, Marin Interfaith Task Force on the Americas, Media Alliance, Pachamama Alliance, Rainforest Action Network, Rights Action and Sunflower Alliance, in support of Defendants-Appellants .

Donald K. Anton, Canberra, Australia, filed a brief for Amici Curiae International Law Professors, in support of Defendants-Appellants.

G. Robert Blakey, Paradise Valley, Arizona, filed a brief as Amicus Curiae, in support of Plaintiff-Appellee .

Christopher J. Walker, Columbus, Ohio (Kate Comerford Todd, Tyler R. Green, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, Inc., Washington, D.C., of counsel), filed a brief for Amicus Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, in support of Plaintiff-Appellee .

Faegre Bakers Daniels, Minneapolis, Minnesota (Aaron D. Van Oort, Jeffrey P. Justman, of counsel), filed a brief for Amici Curiae Keith S. Rosenn, Francisco Reyes, and Raul Nunez Ojeda, in support of Plaintiff-Appellee .

Holwell, Shuster & Goldberg, New York, New York (Richard J. Holwell, of counsel), filed a brief for Amici Curiae Human Rights and Anti-Corruption Jurists, in partial support of Plaintiff-Appellee .

Richard A. Samp, Washington, D.C. (Cory L. Andrews, Washington Legal Foundation, of counsel), filed a brief for Amicus Curiae Washington Legal Foundation, in support of Plaintiff-Appellee .

Roger P. Alford, Notre Dame, Indiana, filed a brief for Amici Curiae Business Roundtable and International Law Scholars, in support of Plaintiff-Appellee .

Jesse P. Levine, New York, New York (William B. Shipley, Genthod, Switzerland, of counsel), filed a brief for Amici Curiae Richard Janda, Juan C. Pinto, and Carolina Cruz Vinaccia, in support of Defendants-Appellants .

Richard L. Herz, Washington, D.C. (Marco B. Simons, Jonathan G. Kaufman, Michelle Harrison, Benjamin Hoffman, of counsel), filed a brief for Amicus Curiae EarthRights International, in support of Defendants-Appellants .

G. Elaine Wood, New York, New York, filed a brief for Amicus Curiae Legal Momentum, in support of Plaintiff-Appellee .

Schwarcz, Rimberg, Boyd & Rader, Los Angeles, California (K. Lee Crawford-Boyd, Los Angeles, California; Judith Kimerling, New York, New York, of counsel), filed a brief for Amici Curiae Proposed Huaorani Intervenors, in partial support of Defendants-Appellants .

Before: KEARSE, PARKER, and WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

KEARSE, Circuit Judge:

Defendants-appellants Steven Donziger, Donziger & Associates, PLLC, and the Law Offices of Steven R. Donziger (collectively the “Donziger Firm” or “Firm”), and defendants-appellants Hugo Gerardo Camacho Naranjo (Camacho) and Javier Piaguaje Payaguaje (Piaguaje), appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Lewis A. Kaplan, Judge, granting certain relief against them in favor of plaintiff-appellee Chevron Corporation (Chevron), in connection with an $8.646 billion judgment obtained against Chevron in Ecuador (“Ecuadorian Judgment”), by several dozen named plaintiffs from Ecuador's Lago Agrio area (the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs or “LAPs”) represented by the Donziger Firm, for environmental damage in connection with 1960s–1990s oil exploration activities in Ecuador by Texaco, Inc. (“Texaco”), whose stock was later acquired by Chevron. The district court's judgment, entered after a bench trial, principally (1) enjoins defendants-appellants from seeking to enforce the Ecuadorian Judgment in any court in the United States, and (2) imposes a constructive trust for Chevron's benefit on any property defendants-appellants have received or may receive anywhere in the world that is traceable to the Ecuadorian Judgment or its enforcement, based on the court's findings that the Ecuadorian Judgment was procured through, inter alia, defendants' bribery, coercion, and fraud, warranting relief against Steven Donziger (Donziger) and his Firm under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 -1968, and against all defendants-appellants under New York common law. SeeChevron v. Donziger, 974 F.Supp.2d 362 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (Donziger). Without challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support any of those factual findings, defendants-appellants challenge the district court's judgment, arguing principally that the action should have been dismissed on the ground that Chevron lacks Article III standing, and/or that the judgment should be reversed on the grounds, inter alia, that it violates principles of international comity and judicial estoppel, exceeds any legal authorization for equitable relief, and was entered without personal jurisdiction over defendants other than Donziger and his Firm. For the reasons that follow, including the absence of challenges to the district court's factual findings, the express disclaimers by the Ecuadorian appellate courts of their own jurisdiction to “hear and resolve” the above charges of corruption, “preserving the parties' rights” to pursue those charges in actions in the United States (Ecuadorian intermediate appellate court clarification order dated January 13, 2012, at 4; see also Opinion of Ecuadorian National Court of Justice at 120 (“preserving the rights and actions of the parties in “acknowledge[ment of] the lack o[f] jurisdiction to decide whether or not there has been procedural fraud”)), and the district court's confinement of its injunction to a grant of in personam relief against the three defendants-appellants without disturbing the Ecuadorian judgment, we find no basis for dismissal or reversal, and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. BACKGROUND...
A. The Scope of the Trial in the Present Case...
B. Specific Findings by the District Court as to Donziger's Acts...
1. Donziger Attempts To Intimidate Chevron Into Settling by Trumpeting a Huge Remediation Cost Estimate Based Only on “SWAG”...
2. Donziger Causes a Change to Less Probative Tests When the LAPs' Experts Find Pollution that Likely Was Not Caused by Texaco...
3. Donziger Knowingly Submits to the Court Reports that Falsify a LAPs' Expert's Conclusions...
4. Donziger Secretly Hires Industry Experts To Offer Their Supposedly Neutral Monitoring Services to the Court, But To Disagree With Any Pro-Chevron Findings...
5. Donziger, Anticipating Additional Pro-Chevron Testing Results, Coerces then-Presiding Judge Yánez To Cancel Most of the Remaining Site Inspections...
6. Donziger Coerces Judge Yánez To Appoint a “Global” Expert—Cabrera—Who [W]ould [T]o...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
119 cases
  • Martinez v. Malloy
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • September 28, 2018
    ... ... Recovery Corp. v. Hellas Telecomm. , 790 F.3d 411, 416-17 (2d. Cir. 2015) (quoting Makarova v. United States , ... must demonstrate a causal nexus between the defendant's conduct and the injury.’ " Chevron Corp. v. Donziger , 833 F.3d 74, 121 (2d Cir. 2016) (internal quotations omitted). This requirement ... ...
  • Amadei v. Nielsen
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • December 13, 2018
    ... ... Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). "Threadbare recitals of ... ‘personally would benefit in a tangible way from the court's intervention.’ " Chevron Corp. v. Donziger , 833 F.3d 74, 121 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Warth , 422 U.S. at 508, 95 S.Ct ... ...
  • United States v. Avenatti
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • July 6, 2021
    ... ... and the claim of right. See Chevron Corp. v ... Donziger, 974 F.Supp.2d 362, 579 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), ... aff'd, 833 F.3d ... ...
  • United States v. Donziger
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • June 22, 2022
    ... ... found that Donziger, a New York lawyer, had engaged in fraud and racketeering activity in order to obtain an $8.646 billion judgment against Chevron Corporation in Ecuador. See Chevron Corp. v. Donziger , 974 F. Supp. 2d 362, 575–603 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), aff'd , 833 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2016). As ... ...
  • Get Started for Free
1 firm's commentaries
  • RICO class actions: D.N.J. rejects claim for private injunctive relief under Federal RICO
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • February 28, 2020
    ...The Insulin decision expressly refused to follow the Second and Seventh Circuit cases espousing the contrary view, Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 833 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2016), and National Organization for Women v. Scheidler, 267 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2001), rev’d on other grounds, 537 U.S. 393 (200......
5 books & journal articles
  • RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...would pursue such a strategy, he noted that the Justice Department will enforce the law nationwide. Id. 413. Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 833 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2016); see also Michael I. Krauss, Chevron’s (And the Rule of Law’s) Triumph: The Supreme Court Declines to Hear Donziger’s Appeal, FO......
  • Parochial procedure.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 69 No. 4, April 2017
    • April 1, 2017
    ...proceedings has cast doubt on the enforceability of the resulting judgments back in the United States. See Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 833 F.3d 74, 80-81, 151 (2d Cir. 2016) (affirming the district court's decision to enjoin the defendants from seeking to enforce the Ecuadorian judgment); se......
  • Enforcing the Unenforceable: Monetary Remedies for Breaches of Nonmonetary Provisions in Sex Abuse Chapter 11 Plans.
    • United States
    • American Bankruptcy Law Journal Vol. 96 No. 3, September 2022
    • September 22, 2022
    ...concern foreign courts' judgments so that they are not necessarily applicable to this question. See, e.g., Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 833 F.3d 74, 80 (2d Cir. 2016) (concerning a preemptive challenge to an Ecuadorian judgment); Chevron Corp. v. Naranjo, 667 F.3d 232, 234 (2d Cir. 2012) (sam......
  • Preventing Foreign-Judgment Country Hopping with a New Transnational Recognition and Enforcement Standard.
    • United States
    • Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law Vol. 54 No. 3, May 2021
    • May 1, 2021
    ...that resulted from the Ecuador litigation). (9.) See generally Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 974 F. Supp. 2d 362 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), affd, 833 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2016) (seeking in part to enjoin the plaintiffs from enforcing the Ecuadorian judgment in the United (10.) See id. (enjoining the plainti......
  • Get Started for Free