37 F. Supp. 3d 653
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Lago Agrio judgment (2011) against Chevron for $18.2B; Chevron sues LAPs, Donziger, and others alleging fraud and bribery to obtain the judgment.
- Court found Donziger and LAP Representatives liable for fraud and RICO violations, as agents acting within their employment.
- NY Judgment imposed a constructive trust on assets traceable to the Lago Agrio Judgment, required Donziger to transfer Amazonia shares to Chevron, and barred enforcement/monetization in the US.
- Relief also limited Donziger and LAP Representatives from profiting from the Lago Agrio Judgment; other LAPs and external parties could pursue enforcement elsewhere.
- Chevron sought a stay pending appeal; the court granted limited relief modifying how Donziger’s Amazonia shares are handled during the appeal, with the rest of the relief staying except as modified.
- Four-factor stay test applied: likely success on the merits, irreparable harm, impact on other parties, and public interest; movants failed on the first two factors, leading to denial of most relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether movants show irreparable harm without a stay. | Chevron/Donziger contend irreparable harm from loss of ability to monetize/transfer assets pending appeal. | Movants claim financial and reputational harm and loss of income if relief is not stayed. | Movants failed to show irreparable harm; limited modification granted only to the Amazonia shares transfer. |
| Whether movants have a substantial likelihood of success on appeal. | Chevron argues relief rests on fraud findings and proper legal theories; standing intact. | Movants assert errors in standing, RICO injunctive relief, and comity aspects. | Movants unlikely to succeed on appeal; relief sustained only in modified form. |
| Whether the NY Judgment’s scope and enforcement limitations align with comity and Naranjo. | Chevron asserts relief is narrowly tailored to prevent profiting from fraud in US; consistent with Naranjo. | Movants argue broader impact and potential preemption of foreign judgments. | Relief narrowly tailored; consistent with Naranjo; does not preempt foreign enforcement. |
| Whether Chevron is judicially estopped from obtaining relief. | Chevron claimed standing and injury from movants’ fraud; sought relief. | Movants contend estoppel based on earlier representations; not likely to prevail. | Judicial estoppel unlikely to prevail. |
| Whether the court has personal jurisdiction over the LAP Representatives. | Court previously found personal jurisdiction; sanctions for noncompliance affirmed. | No compelling reason to overturn; jurisdiction supported by agency theory. | Court has personal jurisdiction over LAP Representatives. |
Key Cases Cited
- Republic of Ecuador v. Chevron Corp., 638 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 2011) (recognition/comity issues; foreign judgments; fraud findings compatible with relief)
- Comer v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 775 (2d Cir. 1994) (standing determined at commencement; mootness considerations)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (S. Ct. 2009) (standard for stay requires more than a mere possibility of success; irreparable harm must be shown)
- Brady v. National Football League, 640 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2011) (stay standards; irreparable harm assessment)