You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Ken Wiwa, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of His Deceased Father, Ken Saro-Wiwa, Owens Wiwa, and Blessing Kpuinen, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Her Husband, John Kpuinen, and Jane Doe, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Company, and Shell Transport and Trading Company, P.L.C., Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants

Citations: 226 F.3d 88; 31 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20166; 157 Oil & Gas Rep. 1; 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 23274Docket: 1999

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; September 14, 2000; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves claims brought by Nigerian emigrants against Royal Dutch Petroleum Company and Shell Transport and Trading Company under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs allege severe human rights abuses, including torture and extrajudicial killings, committed in Nigeria with the defendants' complicity. Initially dismissed for forum non conveniens, the district court's decision was reversed on appeal. The Second Circuit found that the district court had properly exercised personal jurisdiction over the defendants, based on activities by their Investor Relations Office in New York, and that the dismissal failed to consider adequately the plaintiffs' U.S. forum choice and the U.S. interest in adjudicating international human rights violations. The appellate court emphasized the importance of the plaintiffs' choice of a U.S. forum, particularly given their resident status and the statutory intent of the ATCA, and remanded the case for further proceedings. This decision underscores the U.S. policy of providing a forum for addressing international human rights claims, balancing the procedural doctrine of forum non conveniens with substantive policy considerations.

Legal Issues Addressed

Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA)

Application: The plaintiffs filed their claims under the ATCA, asserting jurisdiction over international human rights violations, which aligns with U.S. policy to provide a forum for such claims.

Reasoning: The plaintiffs, who are Nigerian emigrants, brought their claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Due Process and Personal Jurisdiction

Application: The defendants argued that exercising jurisdiction would breach fairness under the Due Process Clause, but the court found their contacts with New York sufficient for jurisdiction.

Reasoning: The court rejected all these arguments, affirming that the defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the Southern District of New York.

Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine

Application: The appellate court determined the district court erred in dismissing the case on forum non conveniens grounds, emphasizing the plaintiffs' choice of a U.S. forum and the U.S. interest in adjudicating international human rights claims.

Reasoning: The court found that the district court erred in dismissing the case for forum non conveniens, as it did not adequately consider the plaintiffs' choice of a U.S. forum and the interests of the United States in adjudicating international human rights claims.

Jurisdiction under N.Y. C.P.L.R. 301

Application: The court found that the activities conducted by the Investor Relations Office in New York were attributable to the defendants, establishing general jurisdiction.

Reasoning: The district court found that these activities were attributable to the defendants and sufficient to establish jurisdiction.

Plaintiff's Choice of Forum and U.S. Interest

Application: The court emphasized the importance of a plaintiff's choice of forum, particularly for U.S. residents, and the statutory policy favoring U.S. forums for international human rights claims.

Reasoning: A strong presumption favors a plaintiff's choice of forum, and such choices receive deference, particularly when the plaintiff has significant ties to that forum.

Significance of Corporate Activities for Jurisdiction

Application: The court examined the defendants' Investor Relations Office activities in New York, determining them substantial enough to establish jurisdiction, despite claims of them being incidental.

Reasoning: The Investor Relations Office engages in extensive activities on behalf of the defendants that exceed the 'incidental' actions typically associated with stock exchange listings.