886 F. Supp. 2d 235
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Texaco's Ecuador operations (1964–1992) via TexPet and Consortium; Petroecuador later controlled operations.
- Aguinda v. Texaco: initial SDNY/Second Circuit dismissals on forum non conveniens and indispensable parties grounds; Texaco consent later.
- Settlement and Final Release (1995/1998) between TexPet/ROE and Ecuadorian authorities resolving environmental claims contingent on remediation.
- EMA 1999 private right of action enabling Lago Agrio litigation against Chevron as successor/affiliates.
- Chevron merged with Texaco in 2001; Chevron became owner of Texaco stock but not its liabilities; Lago Agrio Judgment issued 2011.
- Lago Agrio Judgment: $18.2 billion award against Chevron, later appealed; issues of fraud, lack of jurisdiction, and admissibility debated in Ecuador and the U.S.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lago Agrio Judgment is recognizable/enforceable in New York. | Chevron argues non-recognition based on fraud, penal nature, and lack of personal jurisdiction. | SJ Defendants contend enforcement/recognition not properly before the court or are moot due to representations. | Recognizability issues remain; Chevron not entitled to summary judgment; res judicata issues granted in part. |
| Whether the Judgment can have preclusive effect in this action via res judicata/collateral estoppel. | Chevron seeks preclusion based on Lago Agrio Judgment. | LAP Representatives/Donziger asserted res judicata; some defenses argued to be moot by Representation. | Res judicata defenses dismissed to extent based on the Lago Agrio Judgment; collateral estoppel defenses not granted. |
| Whether the LAP Representation moots or forecloses the defenses in this action. | Chevron. | LAP Representation attempts to moot by unilateral withdrawal. | Representation ineffective to moot defenses; not a proper amendment; does not alter the ruling on res judicata. |
| Whether the Ecuadorian fraud evidence warrants summary judgment of non-recognition. | Chevron asserts fraud in Cabrera/CALMBACHER reports tainted process. | Defendants contest the extent and materiality of fraud; some issues require trial. | Fraud issues remain material; not decided on summary judgment; partial resolution reserved. |
| Whether lack of personal jurisdiction in Ecuador bars recognition. | Lack of personal jurisdiction precludes recognition. | CPLR 5305 allows recognition despite limited appearance; other grounds control. | Lack of PJ not a basis for summary judgment; recognition remains a live issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc., 303 F.3d 470 (2d Cir. 2002) (recounts forum and jurisdiction principles in Sierra dispute; pertinent to recognition debates)
- Republic of Ecuador v. ChevronTexaco Corp., 376 F. Supp. 2d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (relevant to enforcement and preclusion in New York state/federal law context)
- Naranjo v. Chevron Texaco Corp., 667 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 2012) (addressed recognition/enforceability under CPLR Article 53; governs handling of res judicata claims)
- Throckmorton v. United States, 98 U.S. 61 (1879) (extrinsic vs intrinsic fraud distinction in collateral attack on judgments)
- Marshall v. Holmes, 141 U.S. 589 (1891) (reaffirmed equity relief against fraud in judgments; extrinsic/intrinsic distinctions evolved)
- Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) (held fraud in obtaining judgments can warrant relief even for intrinsic fraud)
- Dictograph Prods. Co. v. Sonotone Corp., 860 F.2d 556 (2d Cir. 1988) (extrinsic vs intrinsic fraud discussions in judgment relief)