Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
226 F.3d 88 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When considering a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens in a case brought under the Alien Tort Claims Act, a court must give substantial weight to a U.S. resident plaintiff's choice of a U.S. forum and to the U.S. policy interest in providing a forum for adjudicating claims of torture and other human rights abuses.
Facts:
- Defendants Royal Dutch Petroleum Company and Shell Transport and Trading Co., P.L.C., through their Nigerian subsidiary Shell Nigeria, engaged in extensive oil exploration and development in the Ogoni region of Nigeria.
- Shell Nigeria's operations allegedly involved coercive land appropriation and caused substantial environmental pollution, leading to a protest movement among the Ogoni people led by Ken Saro-Wiwa and John Kpuinen.
- Plaintiffs allege that Shell Nigeria, at the direction of the defendants, recruited the Nigerian military to violently suppress the opposition movement.
- As a result, Saro-Wiwa, Kpuinen, and other Ogoni people were allegedly imprisoned, tortured, and killed by the Nigerian government at the defendants' instigation.
- Specifically, Saro-Wiwa and Kpuinen were hanged in 1995 after being convicted of murder by a military tribunal, allegedly on fabricated evidence provided with the defendants' help.
- Plaintiff Owens Wiwa, Saro-Wiwa’s brother, was illegally detained, and plaintiff Jane Doe was beaten and shot by the Nigerian military during a village raid.
- The defendants are alleged to have provided money, weapons, and logistical support to the Nigerian military for these actions.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, Nigerian émigrés, sued defendants Royal Dutch Petroleum and Shell Transport in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the Alien Tort Claims Act and other laws.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and failure to state a claim.
- A Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, suggesting the case be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, for forum non conveniens in favor of an English forum.
- The District Court Judge rejected the recommendation on personal jurisdiction, finding it existed, but accepted the recommendation to dismiss for forum non conveniens.
- Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was granted only to the extent of conditioning the dismissal on defendants' acceptance of certain terms for litigation in England, which the defendants accepted.
- Plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the District Court's final judgment of dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with the defendants being the appellees.
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 err in dismissing claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act for forum non conveniens by failing to give sufficient weight to the U.S. residency of two plaintiffs and the U.S. policy interest in adjudicating human rights claims?
Opinions:
Majority - Leval, J.
Yes. The district court's dismissal for forum non conveniens is reversed because it failed to apply the correct legal standards. A plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to substantial deference, and that deference increases when the plaintiff is a U.S. resident. The district court erred by not counting in favor of retention the fact that two plaintiffs were residents of the United States; a lawful U.S. resident's 'home forum' for this analysis is any U.S. court, not just their specific district of residence. Furthermore, the district court failed to consider the significant U.S. policy interest, expressed in the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) and the Torture Victim Prevention Act (TVPA), in providing a forum for adjudicating claims of torture that violate international law. The TVPA signifies that such abuses are 'our business' and weighs against facile dismissal. The defendants failed to meet their heavy burden of showing that the balance of private and public interest factors tilted strongly in favor of trial in a foreign forum.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens the ability of human rights victims to bring claims against multinational corporations in U.S. courts under the Alien Tort Claims Act. By elevating the importance of a plaintiff's U.S. residency and the national policy interest in hearing torture claims, the court makes it substantially more difficult for defendants to obtain a forum non conveniens dismissal. This ruling establishes that U.S. courts should serve as a crucial forum for international human rights litigation, especially when U.S. residents are parties. It sets a precedent that corporate defendants with a sufficient presence in the U.S. can be held accountable for their alleged complicity in abuses committed abroad, thereby expanding the practical reach of U.S. human rights law.
Unlock the full brief for Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.