626 F.3d 1137
9th Cir.2011Background
- Achuar plaintiffs and Amazon Watch sue Occidental Peruana for environmental contamination along Block 1-AB of the Rio Corrientes in Peru; Occidental removes to federal court and moves to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds; district court dismisses without conditions citing Peru as adequate forum; Ninth Circuit reverses and remands, finding district court abused discretion by not adequately weighing private/public factors and by failing to impose conditions on dismissal; proceedings concern alleged long-running pollution, potential lead/cadmium exposure, and impacts on indigenous communities; case centers on whether California is the proper forum given Occidental’s home jurisdiction and the plaintiffs’ connection to California.
- Achuar communities rely on rivers for drinking, fishing, and bathing; Block 1-AB site included extensive oil infrastructure and later became largely non-operational by 2000; district court relied on expert Osterling to deem Peruvian law adequate and Peru adequate remedy; Amazon Watch, a California-based plaintiff, is treated as domestic for purposes of the forum non conveniens analysis but was not given full deference; district court did not condition dismissal on measures to ensure cooperation, discovery, or enforceability of Peru judgment.
- Ninth Circuit emphasizes that forum non conveniens is an exceptional tool; presumption favors a domestic plaintiff’s forum and requires strong showing of private/public interest factors plus adequacy of foreign forum; panel reverses and remands for consideration of standing issues and potential conditioning of dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Peru an adequate alternative forum for the claims? | Carijano | Occidental | Yes, Peru adequate; dismissal proper if burdens met |
| Do private/public factors weigh in favor of Peru as forum? | Carijano and Amazon Watch | Occidental | District court abused discretion; factors do not clearly favor Peru |
| Should the dismissal be conditioned to address enforceability, discovery, and statute of limitations? | Carijano | Occidental | Abuse of discretion to dismiss without conditions; remand to consider conditions |
| Should Amazon Watch's standing be resolved before or after forum ruling? | Carijano | Occidental | Standing analysis deferred to district court; Ninth Circuit assumes standing for forum analysis; remand for standing if necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947) (forum non conveniens purpose to avoid harassment; open door of jurisdiction may be abusive)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (strong presumption in favor of plaintiff's forum; requirements for private/public factors)
- Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 433 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2006) (analysis of discrimination/corruption and adequacy of foreign forum)
- Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp., 236 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2001) (forum non conveniens factors; private factors emphasize evidence access over witness count)
- Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007) (district court may address forum non conveniens before jurisdiction; standing objections can be deferred)
- Boston Telecommunications Grp. v. Wood, 588 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2009) (private/public factors neutral or balanced; deference to plaintiff's forum when appropriate)
- Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa, 211 F.3d 509 (9th Cir. 2000) (reaffirmed need for careful balancing; improper to rely on unreasoned factors)
- Paper Operations Consultants Int'l, Ltd. v. S.S. Hong Kong Amber, 513 F.2d 667 (2d Cir. 1975) (forum non conveniens is an extraordinary tool to be used sparingly)