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.
Leave a Reply