Shell Offshore Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc.
815 F.3d 623
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Shell (two subsidiaries) sought to prevent Greenpeace’s direct-action protests that boarded or attempted to impede Shell’s Arctic drilling vessels in the Chukchi Sea.
- In 2012 Shell obtained a preliminary injunction establishing vessel and safety zones; the injunction expired after the drilling season but appeal continued (Greenpeace II).
- In 2015 Greenpeace renewed protests; Shell sued again and the district court granted a preliminary injunction that included vessel/air safety zones, prohibitions on certain actions, and a drone ban during the drilling season.
- While this appeal was pending, Greenpeace activists protested from St. John’s Bridge in Portland to block a Shell-contracted vessel; the district court issued a preliminary contempt order imposing escalating per-hour fines so long as activists remained suspended.
- Shell announced in September 2015 it would cease Arctic exploration for the foreseeable future; the preliminary injunction expired November 1, 2015 and was not renewed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Shell) | Defendant's Argument (Greenpeace) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal of the preliminary injunction is moot after Shell ceased Arctic operations and the injunction expired | The appeal becomes moot once the injunction expired and Shell abandoned drilling; no relief can be granted on the injunction | The pending contempt proceeding preserves a live controversy and rescues the appeal from mootness | Appeal is moot: the preliminary injunction expired and cannot be meaningfully remedied on appeal |
| Whether the contempt proceeding prevents mootness | Contempt could be compensatory and thus survive termination of the injunction if it seeks retrospective damages | Contempt is coercive and conditional, so it keeps live consequences and the appeal is not moot | The contempt order was coercive, not compensatory; coercive contempt is mooted when the underlying injunction terminates |
| Whether the district court’s contempt sanctions were civil coercive or criminal/compensatory in nature | N/A (court evaluates nature) | N/A | The Court concludes the contempt order is coercive (per‑day conditional fines with purge possibility) and thus unenforceable once the injunction expired; the contempt must be vacated |
| Whether any remaining claims survive and the proper next step | Shell seeks damages for torts arising from Greenpeace’s 2015 campaign | Greenpeace argues broader mootness but concedes some issues may remain | District court retains jurisdiction over Shell’s monetary/damages claims; remand for further proceedings; contempt vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281 (9th Cir. 2013) (prior appeal holding preliminary injunction not moot under capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review in earlier facts)
- Bagwell v. Peninsula Hosp. Dist., 512 U.S. 821 (1994) (distinguishing civil coercive contempt from criminal contempt; purge ability central)
- City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (2000) (mootness defined; effectual relief requirement)
- Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364 (1966) (civil contempt purpose and test for what court seeks to accomplish)
- United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell cited precedent UMWA, 330 U.S. 258 (1947) (civil contempt may be coercive or compensatory)
- Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418 (1911) (historical discussion of coercive contempt remedies)
- Rylander v. United States, 460 U.S. 752 (1983) (test for civil contempt on appeal focuses on contemnor’s present ability to comply)
- Lasar v. Ford Motor Co., 399 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2005) (compensatory contempt can keep litigation live)
- Frankl v. HTH Corp., 650 F.3d 1334 (9th Cir. 2011) (preliminary injunction may remain a live controversy where compensatory contempt or retrospective relief remains)