Patton Boggs LLP v. Chevron Corporation
825 F. Supp. 2d 35
D.D.C.2011Background
- Patton Boggs LLP sues Chevron and Gibson Dunn seeking a declaratory judgment that representing Lago Agrio plaintiffs does not violate ethical standards.
- Patton Boggs also asserts tortious interference and civil conspiracy claims against Chevron and Gibson Dunn.
- The court previously dismissed a nearly identical suit, Patton Boggs I, and denied leave to amend in Patton Boggs II.
- The current action mirrors the prior claims; Count I re-alleges a declaratory judgment, Counts II, III, and V mirror earlier tort claims, and Count IV adds post-February 7, 2011 conduct.
- Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing preclusion and failure to state a claim; the court agrees and grants dismissal in full.
- The court applies District of Columbia law for tort claims and notes abstention under the Declaratory Judgment Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Counts I, II, III, and V barred by preclusion? | Patton Boggs argues it should have a full and fair opportunity to litigate. | Patton Boggs I/II precludes these claims as identical with final judgments. | Yes; Counts I, II, III, and V barred by claim and/or issue preclusion. |
| Does Count IV state a plausible post-February 7, 2011 tortious interference claim? | Defendants’ conduct caused non-payment and breach of Patton Boggs’s contract. | Allegations are conclusory and fail to show intentional procurement of breach. | No; Count IV failed to state a plausible claim for relief. |
| Should the court abstain under the Declaratory Judgment Act for Count I? | Court should decide at once whether disqualification would occur. | Resolution would be intrusive and better left to involved courts; DJA abstention appropriate. | Abstention affirmed; declaratory judgment claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- I.A.M. National Pension Fund v. Industrial Gear Mfg. Co., 723 F.2d 944 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (describes elements of claim preclusion)
- Menkes v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 637 F.3d 319 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (defines necessity of essential determinations in judgments)
- In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of Sept. 1, 1983, 932 F.2d 1475 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (abstention and related choice-of-law principles)
- Capitol Hill Grp. v. Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLC, 569 F.3d 485 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (claims barred if arising from same nucleus of facts)
- Drake v. FAA, 291 F.3d 59 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (preclusion principles applying to same nucleus of facts)
- Murray v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., 953 A.2d 308 (D.C. 2008) (elements of tortious interference under DC law)
- Jones v. Horne, 634 F.3d 588 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (requires plausible entitlement to relief)