Resolute Forest Products, Inc. v. Greenpeace International
4:17-cv-02824
N.D. Cal.May 16, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Resolute Forest Products and related entities) are forest-products companies that manufacture paper and operate facilities including in Augusta, Georgia.
- Defendants are environmental organizations and employees (Greenpeace International, Greenpeace, Inc., Greenpeace Fund, ForestEthics, and individual activists) who ran a "Resolute: Forest Destroyer" campaign beginning in 2013.
- Plaintiffs allege Defendants made false statements about Plaintiffs’ forestry practices (including harm to the Canadian Boreal Forest) and that those statements caused lost customers and millions in damages.
- Plaintiffs asserted federal and state claims, including RICO claims premised on alleged mail/wire fraud and extortion in furtherance of a campaign.
- Defendants moved to transfer venue to the Northern District of California; the district court found venue improper in the Southern District of Georgia and granted transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue is proper in the Southern District of Georgia under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) | Resolute: campaign caused loss of Georgia-affiliated customers and Defendants traveled to Augusta to spread falsehoods, so substantial events occurred here | No substantial part of events occurred in this district; relevant contacts are elsewhere | Venue improper in S.D. Ga.; transfer granted |
| Whether communications with Georgia companies establish venue here | Communications with YP (Tucker), The Home Depot (Atlanta), Kimberly-Clark (Roswell), P&G (Albany), and Georgia-Pacific tie the harm to Georgia | Those Georgia contacts are outside this district (Northern or Middle District of GA) and thus do not show a substantial part of events occurred in this district | Contacts were not in this district; insufficient for venue here |
| Whether the Augusta trip by activists gives rise to RICO predicates (mail/wire fraud, extortion) and supports venue | The Augusta visit involved on-the-ground tactics and alleged false communications supporting RICO predicates | Complaint fails to allege what falsehoods were communicated in Augusta or any facts showing fraud or extortion occurred there | Trip alleges protest activity only; Plaintiffs did not plead facts showing fraud/extortion tied to Augusta; does not establish venue |
| Whether transfer to the Northern District of California is appropriate under § 1406(a) | Implicitly opposed but did not contest ND Cal. as proper venue | Key defendants (Brindis, Skar, Moas) worked from and made many statements from Greenpeace’s San Francisco office; ND Cal. is proper forum | Court found substantial events occurred in ND Cal.; transferred case there |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenkins Brick Co. v. Bremer, 321 F.3d 1366 (11th Cir. 2003) (venue under § 1391(b)(2) looks to locations hosting a "substantial part" of events and requires a stronger connection than minimum contacts)
- Am. Dental Ass'n v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2010) (elements of mail/wire fraud require a scheme to defraud plus use of mails or wires in furtherance)
- Delong Equipment Co. v. Washing Mills Abrasive Co., 840 F.2d 843 (11th Cir. 1988) (attendance at conspiratorial meetings may bear on venue analysis when tied to operative events)