Carijano v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.
643 F.3d 1216
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Occidental Peruana (OxyPeru), a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum, operated Block 1-AB with extensive infrastructure in northern Peru.
- Achuar Indigenous group and Amazon Watch sued Occidental in California state court for environmental contamination and related injuries.
- Occidental removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, seeking Peru as an adequate foreign forum.
- The district court granted dismissal without conditions, finding Peru an adequate forum and that private/public factors favored Peru.
- The district court gave Amazon Watch less deference as a domestic plaintiff and dismissed without imposing conditions on the disposal.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding Peru is an adequate forum but remanding for consideration of standing issues and potential conditions on dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Peru an adequate alternative forum? | Achuar/Amazon Watch relied on Peru’s remedy and amenability to process. | Peru offers a satisfactory remedy and Occidental is amenable to Peru process. | Peru is an adequate alternative forum. |
| Did the district court abuse discretion by dismissing without conditions? | Dismissal should be conditioned to ensure enforceability and discovery rights. | Unconditional dismissal is permissible if forum is adequate and interests balance in favor. | Yes, abuse for failure to impose conditions; remand for reconsideration with conditions. |
| Did the district court improperly devalue Amazon Watch as a domestic plaintiff? | Amazon Watch’s status as a domestic plaintiff warrants strong deference to its chosen forum. | Amazon Watch is one plaintiff among many; its status diminishes its weight. | District court abused by affording reduced deference to Amazon Watch. |
| Do private and public interest factors weigh in favor of California or Peru? | California forum better serves witnesses, evidence, and local interests; Peru risks discrimination/corruption concerns. | Peruvian interests and evidence center on Peru; local forum would burden plaintiffs and witnesses. | District court abused balance; factors do not clearly favor Peru. |
Key Cases Cited
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1981) (forum non conveniens: strong deference to plaintiffs; dismissal drastic)
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1947) (open door of jurisdiction; avoid harassment in forum)
- Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (U.S. 2007) (district courts may decide forum non conveniens before jurisdiction)
- Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa, 211 F.3d 509 (9th Cir. 2000) (balance factors; abuse when misbalanced)
- Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 433 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2006) (adequacy of foreign forum; discrimination/corruption considerations)
- Leetsch v. Freedman, 260 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2001) (conditioned dismissals to address statute of limitations)
- Boston Telecomm. Grp. v. Wood, 588 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2009) (private/public factors; deference to forum choice)
- Vivendi SA v. T-Mobile USA Inc., 586 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2009) (forum shopping considerations and domestic co-plaintiff)