Shell Offshore Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 864 F. Supp. 2d 839

Shell moved for TRO and Preliminary Injunction on Feb 27, 2012; TRO issued Mar 1, 2012 restricting Greenpeace from certain acts in U.S. territorial waters against Shell vessels Kulluk and Noble Discoverer.
TRO extended to Mar 28, 2012; Greenpeace opposition filed Mar 12 with declarations from Wetterer, Santry, and Ford.
Shell replied Mar 16 with declarations from Kupchin, Phelps, Kaighin and extensive exhibits about Greenpeace entities.
Hearing held Mar 19, 2012; Wetterer testified; Greenpeace filed Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss; stay motion filed Mar 19-23, 2012.
Court analyzed subject matter jurisdiction, noting potential reach to ports and territorial seas; EEZ and land-based facilities deferred pending briefing.
Court grants preliminary injunction in part, limited to U.S. ports and 12-mile territorial sea, and imposes safety zones around listed Shell vessels.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject matter jurisdiction over Greenpeace USA	Shell argues admiralty/OCSLA-based jurisdiction covers threatened conduct	Greenpeace USA contends no jurisdiction over certain areas and lack of immediate danger	Court has jurisdiction over U.S. ports/territorial waters; EEZ/land-based facilities deferred
Likelihood of Shell's success on the merits	Shell shows Greenpeace threats to interfere with vessels; imminent harm	Greenpeace argues no actionable threat or remedy lacking	Shell likely to succeed on merits regarding threatened tortious conduct
Irreparable harm without relief	Threatened interference risks human life, property, and environment; irreparable harm warranted	Any harm is economic delay; damages could remedy later	Irreparable harm likely; equitable relief appropriate
Balance of equities	Shell's safety zones and preservation of maritime operations outweigh Greenpeace protest rights	Safety zones infringe on Greenpeace monitoring and lawful protest	Equities favor Shell; narrowly tailored relief with safety zones
Public interest	Public interest supports safe marine commerce and preventing illegal conduct	Public interest in First Amendment protest and monitoring	Public interest supports injunction if narrowly tailored to curb illegal/tortious conduct

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (irreparable harm likelihood required for preliminary relief)
Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, 519 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1997) (speech-injunction balancing test; public forum distinction; fixed buffer zones)
Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (U.S. 1994) (framework for assessing injunctions limiting speech near clinics)
Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Canyon Television & Appliance Rental, 944 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1991) (damages inadequacy can justify irreparable harm in injunctions)
Marastro Compania Naviera, S.A. v. Canadian Maritime Carriers, Ltd., 959 F.2d 49 (5th Cir. 1992) (tort injunctive relief for threatened torts under Restatement process)
United States v. Schiff, 379 F.3d 621 (9th Cir. 2004) (publication orders in preliminary injunction context; content regulation)