Institute of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
774 F.3d 935
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Cetacean and co-plaintiffs obtained an injunction prohibiting Sea Shepherd US, Watson, and others from physically attacking or approaching within 500 yards of plaintiffs’ vessels in the Southern Ocean.
- Defendants adopted a “separation strategy” transferring operational control of Operation Zero Tolerance (OZT) to foreign Sea Shepherd entities to continue the campaign.
- Sea Shepherd US continued post‑injunction support for OZT, including funding, and transferring a vessel and equipment to foreign entities anticipated to violate the injunction.
- Plaintiffs’ incidents evidence spans Jan–Feb 2013, including the Brigitte Bardot approaching within 20.25 yards of a plaintiff vessel and several other 500‑yard perimeter violations and collisions.
- The Appellate Commissioner recommended no contempt against the defendants; the Ninth Circuit ultimately found contempt for Sea Shepherd US, Watson, and volunteer directors while Hartland was not held in contempt.
- The court evaluated whether aiding and abetting non-parties, proximate causation, and a lack of Vertex-based good faith absolved liability, and held that VPA immunity does not bar contempt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contempt for aiding and abetting non-parties via separation strategy | Sea Shepherd US knowingly enabled violations by transferring control/assets. | No control over non-parties; no liability for others’ acts. | Sea Shepherd US liable for contempt for aiding and abetting. |
| Post‑injunction assistance and asset transfers violating the injunction | Continued funding and asset transfers facilitated violations. | Actions aimed at compliance; not prohibited. | Contempt valid for post‑injunction assistance and transfers. |
| Watson's personal proximity to plaintiffs’ vessel | Watson violated the 500-yard safety perimeter personally. | Watson acted as observer within plan to comply. | Watson held in contempt for coming within 500 yards. |
| Volunteer directors and Volunteer Protection Act (VPA) impact | VPA immunity applies to volunteers; shields board members. | VPA immunizes volunteers from contempt. | VPA does not bar contempt; directors liable; Hartland difference noted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Regal Knitwear Co. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 9 (U.S. 1945) (aiding and abetting can render liable even without direct action)
- NLRB v. Deena Artware, Inc., 361 U.S. 398 (U.S. 1960) (aiding and abetting liability principles applied to injunctions)
- In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693 (9th Cir. 1993) (civil contempt requires clear and convincing evidence of violation)
- United States v. Shipp, 214 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1909) (early authority on contempt and aiding implied responsibility)
- John B. Stetson Co. v. Stephen L. Stetson Co., 128 F.2d 981 (2d Cir. 1942) (breach of decree can be found in spirit as well as letter)
- McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187 (U.S. 1949) (warned against experimentation with disobedience of decrees)
- Vertex Distrib., Inc. v. Falcon Foam Plastics, Inc., 689 F.2d 885 (9th Cir. 1982) (good faith exception when order vague; here not applicable)
- Goya Foods, Inc. v. Wallack Mgmt. Co., 290 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2002) (non-parties’ liability when action would violate injunction for benefitting subject to decree)
- Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc., 267 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2001) (injunctions and aiding/abetting—limited by context; not controlling here)
- Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (S. Ct. 2014) (proximate causation and connection between conduct and result)