I wrote a couple of days ago about the Huaorani motion for leave to intervene in Chevron’s RICO case against Donziger and others. I should have noted that on November 28 the Huaorani filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of their claims against Donziger in the separate civil action they had brought, which I reported on in July.
Since the Huaorani seek to assert cross-claims against Donziger as intervenors, and since the motion for leave to intervene has not yet been granted, it’s not clear to me why the Huaorani agreed to a voluntary dismissal of their claims in their separate action before getting a ruling on their motion for leave to intervene. Perhaps they should have sought to intervene only to defend the validity of the Ecuadoran judgment and should have sought to consolidate their own action with the RICO case. But these are just procedural niceties—assuming the motion for leave to intervene will be granted, it amounts to the same thing in the end.