Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Chevron v Donziger. Document 550. Order on Partial Summary Judgment Motion

Chevron v Donziger. Document 550. Order on Partial Summary Judgment Motion

Ratings: (0)|Views: 79|Likes:
Published by Roger Parloff
Judge Lewis Kaplan finds Ecuadorian judgment "unquestionably ... tainted" but withholds judgment on whether judgment is so thoroughly tainted as to be unenforceable.
Judge Lewis Kaplan finds Ecuadorian judgment "unquestionably ... tainted" but withholds judgment on whether judgment is so thoroughly tainted as to be unenforceable.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Roger Parloff on May 09, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/09/2013

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xCHEVRON CORPORATION,Plaintiff,-against-11 Civ. 0691 (LAK)STEVEN DONZIGER, et al.,Defendants.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
OPINION ON PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
Appearances:Randy M. MastroAndrea E. NeumanKristen L. HendricksScott A. EdelmanWilliam E. ThompsonG
IBSON
,
 
D
UNN
&
 
C
RUTCHER 
,
 
LLP
 Attorneys for Plaintiff 
John W. Keker Elliot R. PetersChristopher J. YoungJan Nielsen LittleMatthew M. Werdeger  Nikki H. VoPaula L. Blizzard William S. Hicks
EKER 
&
 
V
AN
 N
EST
,
 
LLP
 Attorneys for Donziger 
 
 Defendants
Julio C. GomezJ
ULIO
C.
 
G
OMEZ
,
 
A
TTORNEY AT
L
AW
LLCTyler G. DoyleCraig Smyser Larry R. VeselkaChristina A. BryanGarlard D. Murphy, IVS
MYSER 
APLAN
&
 
V
ESELKA
,
 
L.L.P.
 Attorneys for Defendants Hugo Gerardo,Camacho Naranjo and Javier PiaguajePayaguaje
Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK Document 550 Filed 07/31/12 Page 1 of 105
 
T
ABLE OF
C
ONTENTS
Facts........................................................................4I.Background......................................................4A.Texacos Activities in Ecuador (1964-1992).......................4B.The Aguinda Litigation.......................................5C.Important Developments During the Aguinda Litigation.............61.The Settlement and Final Release.........................62.The Environmental Management Act of 1999................73.Chevron Acquires Shares of Texaco ......................7II.The Lago Agrio Litigation...........................................8A.Filing the Lawsuit...........................................8B.Summary of the Lago Agrio Proceedings.........................9C.Summary of the Lago Agrio Judgment..........................12D.The Ecuadorian Appellate Court’s Treatment of Chevron’s Fraud Claim.........................................................14E.Developments Since the Appellate Decision......................17III.Prior Proceedings in this Litigation...................................19A.The Pleadings..............................................191.The Amended Complaint...............................192.The Answers........................................21B.Prior Proceedings in this Court................................22C.Proceedings in the Court of Appeals............................23D.The Present Motion.........................................24IV.The Alleged Fraud in Ecuador.......................................25A.The Alleged Ghost-Writing of Portions of the Court’s Judgment......27B.Allegedly Fraudulent Evidence, the Termination of Judicial Inspections,and the Appointment of Cabrera...............................301.Calmbacher Reports...................................302.Ending of Judicial Inspections and Cabreras Appointment....323.The Cabrera Report...................................35a.Defendants Secretly Were Involved in Defining the Scopeof Cabreras Report.............................36 b.The LAP Team Wrote Much of the Cabrera Report....374.The CleansingReports...............................40Discussion..................................................................43I.Summary Judgment Standard.......................................43A.General...................................................43B.S.D.N.Y. Civil Rule 56.1.....................................44II. The Res Judicata-Collateral Estoppel Defense Is Properly Before the Court and Is Not Moot.......................................................47A.The Answers Are Sufficient to Assert the Judgment As Claim or IssuePreclusive and Were Intended to Do So .........................481.The Answers Sufficiently Assert These Defenses Based on theJudgment...........................................492.The DefendantsIntentions.............................51a.The SJ Defendants’ Prior Communication With This Court
Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK Document 550 Filed 07/31/12 Page 2 of 105
 
.............................................51 b.The Argument to the Second Circuit................53c.The Lack of Any Other Arguable Basis for the Defenses.............................................54d.The Finality Argument...........................57B.The Disclaimer of Intention to Seek Enforcement of the Judgment in NewYork Neither Moots the Defenses Nor Sufficed to Withdraw ThemWithout Prejudice..........................................591.The Representation Would Be Ineffective Even on Its Own Terms...................................................59a.The Donziger Defendants Are Not Foreclosed fromAsserting the Judgment as Res Judicata or CollateralEstoppel on the Theory that They Are Not JudgmentCreditors and Hold No Rule 24 “Interest” in the Judgment.............................................60 b.The Representation Does Not Even Bind the LAPRepresentatives................................632.The Representation Did Not Moot the Defenses.............643.The Representation Was an Ineffective Unilateral Amendment tothe SJ DefendantsAnswers............................66C. Nothing in Naranjo Forecloses Consideration of the Defenses........70III.The Enforceability and Recognizability of the Judgment..................71A.Burdens of Proof With Respect to Recognizability and Enforceability of the Judgment..............................................72B.Lack of Personal Jurisdiction..................................74C.Penal Character of the Judgment...............................76D.Fraud....................................................771.The Extrinsic-Intrinsic Fraud Distinction..................77a.United States v. Throckmorton....................77 b.The Questionable Vitality of Throckmorton..........79c.Does the Recognition Act Incorporate the Extrinsic-Intrinsic Distinction?............................832.Other Requirements...................................843.Does Chevron’s Evidence of Fraud Warrant Summary Judgmentof Non-Recognition? ..................................86a.The Alleged Ghost-Writing of the Judgment..........86 b.The Calmbacher Reports .........................88c.The Termination of Judicial Inspections and Cabrera’sAppointment..................................89d.The Cabrera and “Cleansing” Reports...............90IV.Chevrons Former Adjudication Arguments............................93Conclusion..................................................................96
Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK Document 550 Filed 07/31/12 Page 3 of 105

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->