Breaking News: Second Circuit Denies Chevron’s Motion For Relief

Today the Second Circuit denied Chevron’s motion for relief in a brief order, without opinion. In my post of January 5, 2011, I gave some substantive and procedural reasons for thinking that the motion should be denied. On the procedural side, there wasn’t a clear hook for Chevron to seek what was, in effect, reconsideration of the Second Circuit’s earlier decision vacating Judge Kaplan’s injunction. On the substantive side, it didn’t seem oppressive to me to contemplate a judgment creditor pursuing collection remedies in multiple jurisdictions, and the injunction itself seemed insufficiently insensitive to comity concerns.

I’ll keep you posted on developments.

This Post Has 3 Comments

  1. Max Kennerly

    IMHO, the comity issue is killing them, and they’re asking for way too much. By what right does a US court prevent a foreign plaintiff from enforcing a foreign judgment in a foreign country? What’s even the remedy if the plaintiff violates the injunction? Add in the fact that Chevron is operating through subsidies in each of those countries, and thus the “effects” in the US are muted, and Chevron is stuck arguing that SDNY is has jurisdiction over the whole world.

    I also imagine there’s more than a little bit of equity at work here. The plaintiffs tried to sue in SDNY and Chevron successfully raised a fuss about jurisdiction and FNC. Having lost in their preferred jurisdiction, they’re back in SDNY claiming SDNY is now the right venue. “If you liked it then you should have put a ring on it.”

Leave a Reply

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email

Related Posts

folkman llc banner
Learn more about Ted Folkman and our practice areas. Read Ted’s award-winning blog on international judicial assistance, Letters Blogatory.
Subscribe to our newsletter

Please subscribe to our “Clients and Colleagues” newsletter, which we typically send approximately quarterly.