Chevron Corp. v. Salazar
807 F. Supp. 2d 189
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Chevron seeks to prevent recognition/enforcement of Lago Agrio judgment and obtain injunctions; LAPs seek judgment on the pleadings on judicial estoppel and related issues; LAP Representatives rely on Texaco's statements in Aguinda that Ecuadorian courts were impartial and Texaco would satisfy judgments; Chevron acquired Texaco after those statements; Texaco and Chevron are separate legal entities, with Texaco merging into Texaco, not Chevron into Texaco relationship; issue is whether Chevron is bound by Texaco's statements and whether judicial estoppel applies given potential inconsistency; court has found no clear inconsistency between Texaco's prior statements and Chevron's current arguments for the period 2003–2011; the pleadings do not establish disregard of Texaco's corporate existence or bound Chevron to Texaco’s statements; the court denies LAP Representatives’ motion on the pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial estoppel applies to deter conflicting positions | LAP argues Texaco's Aguinda statements imply inconsistency with Chevron now. | Chevron contends no clear inconsistency; no unfair advantage; no binding effect. | Not established; no clear inconsistency; estoppel denied. |
| Ecuadorian court's jurisdiction over Chevron | Chevron contends Ecuador lacked jurisdiction over Chevron. | Texaco had consented to Ecuadorian jurisdiction; potential binding effect. | Not resolved on pleadings; question remains unresolved in this motion. |
| Chevron bound by Texaco's promises or veil-piercing | Texaco's statements could bind Chevron via successor-in-interest or veil-piercing. | Chevron is a separate entity; no factual basis pleaded to pierce veil or bind. | Not bound on the pleadings; issues require more evidence. |
| Impact of Republic of Ecuador footnote and dicta | Footnote asserts Chevron bound as successor; dictum binds Chevron. | Footnote was dicta and not binding; not controlling under issue preclusion. | Footnote is not binding on Chevron; not dispositive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Republic of Ecuador v. ChevronTexaco Corp., 638 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 2011) (whether Chevron bound by Texaco's promises; discussion of successor in interest and veil issues)
- Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc., 303 F.3d 470 (2d Cir. 2002) (procedural history of Aguinda; jurisdiction/forum non conveniens context)
- Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc., 945 F. Supp. 625 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (forum non conveniens and compellability considerations (early history))
- Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc., 142 F. Supp. 2d 534 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (remanent decisions on jurisdiction and forum non conveniens on remand)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (general principles of judicial estoppel and integrity of court proceedings)
- Grieve v. Tamerin, 269 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2001) (collateral estoppel considerations and related issues)