Carijano v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.
686 F.3d 1027
9th Cir.2012Background
- Dissenting opinion argues the panel violated core jurisdictional principles and should have addressed Article III standing first.
- Majority assumed Amazon Watch had standing for forum non conveniens analysis, keeping case in federal court.
- District court dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds without ruling on standing merits; remand requested later on standing.
- Dissent recalls Supreme Court rule that without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed and merits must be dismissed absent proper jurisdiction.
- Sinochem provides a narrow exception allowing dismissal on forum non conveniens without addressing jurisdiction, but dissent says it does not permit deciding non-jurisdictional issues.
- Dissent urges en banc rehearing to correct alleged boot-strap overreach and to require jurisdictional questions to be resolved first.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the panel prematurely assumed jurisdiction. | Amazon Watch argues lack of standing and jurisdiction invalidates merits analysis. | Occidental contends forum non conveniens analysis can proceed; standing issues unresolved yet. | Jurisdiction must be addressed first; assumption of standing is improper. |
| Whether Sinochem allows addressing forum non conveniens before jurisdiction on appeal. | Amazon Watch stresses jurisdictional questions cannot be bypassed on appeal. | Occidental relies on Sinochem as enabling dismissal without threshold jurisdiction resolved. | Sinochem does not authorize bypassing jurisdiction on appeal; jurisdiction should be resolved first. |
| Remand as to standing rather than merits. | Amazon Watch contends standing issues should be resolved before any forum non conveniens ruling. | Occidental seeks remand to assess standing in the district court first. | Remand appropriate to decide standing before adjudicating merits, not to permit merits decisions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed; threshold question of jurisdiction)
- Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (U.S. 1868) (historic jurisdictional framework; power to declare law)
- Great S. Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, 177 U.S. 449 (U.S. 1900) (mandates addressing jurisdiction first on appeal)
- Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (U.S. 2007) (district court may dismiss on forum non conveniens without threshold objections)
- Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2009) (recognizes court’s leeway but requires jurisdictional considerations where appropriate)
- Carijano v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 643 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 2011) (discusses remand and forum non conveniens considerations on appeal)
- Ibrahim v. DHS, 538 F.3d 1250 (9th Cir. 2008) (distinguishes when standing and jurisdictional issues can be addressed)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1981) (forum non conveniens factors; remand with changed circumstances may occur)