Saudi Basic Indus. Corp. v. Exxon Mobil Corp.Saudi Basic Indus. Corp. v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Ambro, Fuentes, Chertoff
Gregory A. Castanias, Esq. (Argued)
William K. Shirey II, Esq.
Jones Day
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Kenneth R. Adamo, Esq.
Michael W. Vary, Esq.
Leozino Agozzino, Esq.
Jones Day
North Point
901 Lakeside Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44114
Attorneys for Appellant
Elizabeth J. Sher, Esq.
Pitney, Hardin, Kipp & Szuch
P.O. Box 1945
Morristown, NJ 07962
James W. Quinn, Esq.
David J. Lender, Esq.
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
767 Fifth Avenue, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10153
Andrew S. Pollis, Esq.
David J. Michalski, Esq.
Hahn, Loeser & Parks
3300 BP America Building
200 Public Square
Cleveland, OH 44114
K.C. Johnson, Esq.
Exxon Mobil Corporation
800 Bell Street, Suite 1686J
Houston, TX 77002
Attorneys for Appellees
OPINION OF THE COURT
AMBRO, Circuit Judge
Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (“SABIC“) appeals from the District Court‘s order denying its motiоn to dismiss, based on sovereign immunity, the claims of two ExxonMobil subsidiaries, Mobil Yanbu Petrochemical Company (“Yanbu“) and Exxon Chemical Arabia, Inc. (“ECAI“). We do not reach the foreign sovereign immunity question, however, because we determine that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal subject matter jurisdiction over the subsidiaries’ claims, which have been already decided in state court.
I. Facts and Procedural Posture
In 1980, SABIC and the Exxon (now ExxonMobil) subsidiaries formed two joint venture entities. One, called Yanpet, was the joint venture between SABIC and Yanbu, and another, called Kemya, was the joint venture between SABIC and ECAI. Two decades later, the parties began to dispute the propriety of royalties SABIC had charged to the joint venture entities for the sublicense to a polyethylene manufacturing method called the Unipol® process. In September 2000 SABIC sued Yanbu and ECAI in the Delaware Superior Court seeking a declaratory judgment that these royalty charges did not violate thе joint venture agreements with Yanbu and ECAI. Later that same month ExxonMobil, Yanbu, and ECAI countersued SABIC in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Civil Action No. 00-3841), seeking the converse declarаtory judgment—that SABIC had overcharged the joint venture entities for the sublicense in violation of the joint venture agreements.
In January 2002, Yanbu and ECAI filed an answer to SABIC‘s state court complaint, аsserting as counterclaims the same claims they had filed in their federal court complaint. In March 2003, after a two-week trial in the Delaware Superior Court, the jury returned a $416,880,764 verdict аgainst SABIC in favor of ExxonMobil. SABIC has appealed the verdict, which is currently pending in the Delaware Supreme Court.
Prior to the state court trial, SABIC moved to dismiss ExxonMobil‘s federal court aсtion, asserting foreign sovereign immunity. The District Court denied the motion on April 3, 2002. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp. v. ExxonMobil Corp., 194 F. Supp. 2d 378 (D.N.J. 2002). Though the order also addressed other issues in that action, SABIC appeals only from the sovereign immunity decision.
II. Jurisdiction
A. Appellate Jurisdiction
We generally do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory decisions such as the denial of a motion to dismiss. Under the collateral order doctrine,1 however,
B. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
Determining that appellate jurisdiction is proper in a case does not end our jurisdictional inquiry. We have a “continuing obligation to sua sponte raise the issue of subjеct matter jurisdiction when it is in question.” Desi‘s Pizza, Inc. v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 321 F.3d 411, 420 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing Bracken v. Matgouranis, 296 F.3d 160, 162 (3d Cir. 2002)). We focused at oral argument on whether federal subject matter jurisdiction over this case fails under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because ExxonMobil‘s claims have already been litigated in state court. Aided by post-argument letter briefs submitted by the parties, we conclude the answer is yes.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine, derived from two Supreme Court cases—Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983)—prevents lower federal courts from “sit[ting] in direct review of the decisions of a state tribunal.” Gulla v. North Strabane Twp., 146 F.3d 168, 171 (3d Cir. 1998). Because Congress has conferred jurisdiction to review a state court‘s decision only on the Supreme Court, see
The state level decision need nоt be of its highest court. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies equally to final decisions of lower state courts. FOCUS, 75 F.3d at 840.
Here there is no dispute that ExxonMobil‘s claims are identical to the claims upon which the Delaware Superior Court reached a final judgment. Thus, though our Court takes a narrow view of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Parkview Assocs. P‘ship, 225 F.3d at 326, litigating ExxonMobil‘s claims to final judgment in state court presents the “paradigm situation in which Rooker-Feldman precludes a federal district court from proceeding.” E.B. v. Verniero, 119 F.3d 1077, 1090–91 (3d Cir. 1997) (describing a case in which the federal court plaintiff sought an injunction directing that a state court order not be carried out).
ExxonMobil argues that the “actually litigated” circumstance does not trigger
ExxonMobil also argues that Rooker-Feldman should not apply in this case because it is not a party to the action in Delaware state court, in which only its subsidiaries, Yanbu and ECAI, are defendants. Indeed, we have consistently (and recently) held thаt Rooker-Feldman does not bar claims of plaintiffs who were not parties to the state court proceeding. See Nat‘l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm‘n, 342 F.3d 242, 257 (3d Cir. 2003); Marks v. Stinson, 19 F.3d 873, 886 n.11 (3d Cir. 1994). But we have also noted that this limiting principle of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine “has a clоse affinity to the principles embodied in the legal concepts of claim and issue preclusion.” Valenti v. Mitchell, 962 F.2d 288, 297 (3d Cir. 1992). Claims and issues decided against an entity bind also its parties in privity, including wholly owned subsidiariеs. Lubrizol Corp. v. Exxon Corp., 929 F.2d 960, 966 (3d Cir. 1991). Underscoring this common sense privity principle is the fact that ExxonMobil‘s interest in its federal claims is identical to its subsidiaries’ interest in their state court claims, because its right to recovеr is derivative of its subsidiaries’ right to recover. Indeed, both Yanbu and ECAI are co-plaintiffs with ExxonMobil in the federal action.
As ExxonMobil‘s federal claims were “actually litigated” in state court, we need not analyze whether, under the alternative prong of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, they were “inextricably intertwined with a previous state court adjudication.” Parkview Assocs. P‘ship, 225 F.3d at 327. We
* * * * *
Because ExxonMobil‘s federal claims werе identical to the claims in which the Delaware Superior Court reached a final judgment, they are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Even within our Court‘s narrow confines for Rooker-Feldman, this case is easily cabined. We cannot imagine a more classic invocation of the Rooker-Feldman jurisdictional bar than to preclude a party from maintaining a federal action as an “insurance policy” in case the state trial court decision in that party‘s favor is overturned by an appellate state court. We therefore vacate those aspects of the District Court‘s order addressing Civil Action No. 00-3841, the subject of this aрpeal, and remand with instructions to dismiss that action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.