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.

About Ted Folkman

Ted Folkman is a shareholder with Murphy & King, a Boston law firm, where he has a complex business litigation practice. He is the author of International Judicial Assistance (MCLE 2d ed. 2016), a nuts-and-bolts guide to international judicial assistance issues, and of the chapter on service of process in the ABA's forthcoming treatise on International Aspects of US Litigation, and he is the publisher of Letters Blogatory, the Web's first blog devoted to international judicial assistance, which the ABA recognized as one of the best 100 legal blogs in 2012, 2014, and 2015.

3 thoughts on “Breaking News: Second Circuit Denies Chevron’s Motion For Relief

  1. 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.”

    1. Thank you, Max, for the comment. I think that some of the judges who have heard argument on various aspects of the case have had the same reaction as you to the apparent equities of the case. You might be interested in this post, which addresses some of this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *