Carijano v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
643 F.3d 1216, 2011 WL 2138209 (2011)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

The doctrine of forum non conveniens is an exceptional tool to be used sparingly; a domestic plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to a strong presumption of convenience that is not diluted by the presence of foreign co-plaintiffs, and a dismissal on these grounds constitutes an abuse of discretion if the court fails to properly weigh relevant factors or impose necessary conditions to ensure the alternative forum is truly adequate.

Facts:

Occidental, a large U.S. oil and gas company headquartered in Los Angeles, conducted exploration operations in the Rio Corrientes region of the Peruvian rainforest from the early 1970s until 2000.
The Achuar, an indigenous people residing along the rivers in this remote region, relied on local waterways for drinking, fishing, and bathing.
During its operations, Occidental allegedly utilized outdated methods for separating crude oil, resulting in the discharge of millions of gallons of toxic byproducts into the rivers.
Achuar residents suffered from health problems including high levels of lead and cadmium in their blood, skin rashes, and kidney trouble, while local fish and game populations declined.
Amazon Watch, a non-profit corporation based in California, began working with Achuar communities in 2001 to document the contamination.
Amazon Watch representatives engaged in public relations campaigns and met with Occidental officials in Los Angeles regarding the pollution.
Occidental allegedly made key decisions regarding the Peruvian operations and environmental policies at its corporate headquarters in Los Angeles.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Occidental in the Los Angeles County Superior Court (state trial court).
Occidental removed the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (federal trial court).
Occidental filed a motion to dismiss the case based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
The District Court granted Occidental's motion and dismissed the case without oral argument and without imposing any conditions on the dismissal.
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Did the district court abuse its discretion in dismissing the lawsuit on the grounds of forum non conveniens by failing to afford the proper deference to a domestic plaintiff's choice of forum and by dismissing the case without imposing conditions to ensure an adequate remedy in Peru?

Opinions:

Majority - Judge Wardlaw

Yes, the district court abused its discretion by striking an unreasonable balance of relevant factors and failing to impose necessary conditions on the dismissal. While Peru is technically an adequate alternative forum, the district court erred legally by giving 'reduced deference' to Amazon Watch, a domestic plaintiff. A domestic plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to a strong presumption of convenience, which is not diminished simply because foreign co-plaintiffs are also involved. Furthermore, the district court failed to properly weigh private interest factors, specifically overlooking that Occidental's headquarters are in California and that enforcing a Peruvian judgment in the U.S. might be difficult. Finally, it was an abuse of discretion to dismiss the case without conditions (such as waiving the statute of limitations), given the risk that Occidental could use procedural defenses in Peru to block the suit entirely.

Concurring_in_part_and_dissenting_in_part - Judge Rymer

No, regarding the weighing of factors, but yes, regarding the potential need for conditions. The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the balance of public and private factors favored Peru, as the case centers primarily on Peruvian land and people. The reduced deference to the domestic plaintiff was justified because Amazon Watch was only one of many plaintiffs and joined the suit later. However, the case should be remanded solely to determine if specific conditions, such as a waiver of the statute of limitations or agreement to cooperate with discovery, are necessary to ensure the alternative forum is adequate.

Analysis:

This decision significantly strengthens the position of domestic non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and foreign plaintiffs suing U.S. corporations for environmental torts committed abroad. By holding that a domestic plaintiff's presence preserves the strong presumption of convenient forum—even when joined by foreign plaintiffs—the Ninth Circuit made it more difficult for corporations to dismiss such cases to foreign jurisdictions using forum non conveniens. Additionally, the ruling mandates that district courts must actively consider and impose conditions (like statute of limitations waivers) when dismissing cases to foreign courts, ensuring that the 'alternative forum' is not merely a theoretical concept but a practical venue where justice can be pursued.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Carijano v. Occidental Petroleum Corp. (2011)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"