Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/218935823/2011-02-28-Application-to-Transfer-RICO-Case
Timestamp: 2018-09-25 17:20:20
Document Index: 395130744

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1782', '§ 5304', '§1782', '§ 5304', '§ 5304', '§ 5301', '§ 1782', '§ 1782', '§ 1782', '§ 1782', '§ 1782', '§1782', '§ 5304', '§ 1782', '§ 1782', '§ 1782', '§ 1782', '§ 1782', '§ 1782', '§ 1782', '§ 1782', '§ 1782']

2011 02 28 Application to Transfer RICO Case | Lawsuit | Public Law
Uploaded by seanjohnadams
Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Bartile Roofs, Inc., 618 F.3d 1153, 10th Cir. (2010)
Proposed Organizational Chart of the LA JR Alleged Los Angeles Judiciary Racket s[1]
A MTN for Relief of Void Judgment 2
Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK Document 160
Filed 02/28/11 Page 1 of 24
CHEVRON CORPORATION, Plaintiff, vs. STEVEN DONZIGER, et al., Defendants.
CASE NO. 11-CV-0691-LAK
DEFENDANT STEVEN DONZIGER’S APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF CASE AS RELATED TO AGUINDA, ET AL. v. TEXACO, ET AL., 93-CV-07527 JSR, PURSUANT TO RULE 15 OF THE DIVISION OF BUSINESS AMONG DISTRICT JUDGES, SOUTHERN DISTRICT
546876.01
Filed 02/28/11 Page 2 of 24
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. II. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND REGARDING PRIOR LITIGATION ....................................................2 A. B. C. D. III. 1993-2002: Litigation In Judge Broderick’s And Judge Rakoff’s Courts.......................................................................................................................2 1998-2001: Chevron’s Promises To Judge Rakoff.................................................3 2002-2011: The Litigation Proceeds To Trial And Judgment In Ecuador. ...................................................................................................................4 February 2011: Chevron Counter-Sues The Ecuadorian Nationals And Their Advisors. ........................................................................................................4
ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................................6 A. B. Chevron should have disclosed the original, earliest filed case, as “related” when it filed this case. ..............................................................................6 Chevron has sought to steer this case to Judge Kaplan because it perceives him as favorable to its positions. .............................................................9 1. This Court has expressed the view that it views the Ecuadorian litigation as a “game” which has been manufactured by greedy plaintiffs’ lawyers. .......................................................................................9 This Court has expressed comments belittling the Aguinda plaintiffs, the Ecuadorian Government, and the Ecuadorian justice system. ............................................................................................10 This Court urged Chevron to bring this action against the Aguinda plaintiffs and their lawyers and advisors.....................................11 This Court has expressed its views as to the merits of the underlying suit by the Aguinda plaintiffs against Chevron for recovery of damages for environmental and personal injury.....................11 This Court has ruled against litigation positions taken by the Aguinda Plaintiffs, and Mr. Donziger, time and time again. .....................12 Even the press has noticed this Court’s hostility toward Mr. Donziger.....................................................................................................13 The Special Master appointed by Judge Kaplan has also been hostile to Mr. Donziger. .............................................................................13
5. 6. 7. IV.
P.... Supp.... Supp.......................... 10-4341-cv...13 Aguinda v.. Supp................C........................ 3. passim Bailey v.........Y..................................6 Federal Statutes 28 U...... 1998) .. United States 11 Cl...... 2d 625 (S. Texaco 142 F... Cal.....N. v........................ Inc....... 2010) ....2..........................6 Jota v.................. Texaco 303 F.. Mass................6 Walker v.................................. App............ 2010 U.................3d 470 (2d Cir........... 9 546876...... Ct. 2001) ........................................... Texaco Inc.................... 386 Fed............. Morgan............ 181 (1986) ......................... Supp....D......... 4 Aguinda.....................2....R....3................. rev’d on other grounds by Walker v............................................................ 945 F........... §1782................S.D....... 2002) ................. § 5304.....3.............. 1996) ..... et al.........01 ii ......................... passim State Statutes C.. of Mich................ 2009).. Motricity............................... et al.. Dec................Y....... 2d 534 (S......... 3 Thaxton v......................................3d 153 (2d Cir. 10-4405-cv(CON).. July 2.............. Dart Container Corp........................................L. LEXIS 25546 (2d Cir.. Nos......................................N. 2d 1137 (N...... Texaco 157 F...................................... 627 F................. 4 Aguinda Plaintiffs v........S....... 584 (D.... Chevron Corp.. 2010)........ 15. v....................Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK Document 160 Filed 02/28/11 Page 3 of 24 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Federal Cases Aguinda.D... App’x 601 (9th Cir.............................. 1997) ......... 980 F........
that litigation was dismissed and transferred to the courts of Ecuador. v. by lot or otherwise. and seeking to enjoin enforcement of the judgment resulting from that litigation. Chevron disclosed as potentially related only the 2010 cases under 28 U. in the alternative. when filing the instant action.C. et al. Chevron was able to steer the instant case to Judge Kaplan. Southern District. together with their lawyers and advisors. Texaco. 93-CV-07527 JSR. to Ecuador. Local Civil Rule 1. Chevron did not disclose in its Civil Cover Sheet and Related Case Explanation that the instant case flows continuously and directly from the toxic tort case the Ecuadorian nationals originally begun in 1993 and litigated for nine years in this Court before being transferred. At Chevron’s request. Aguinda. claiming fraud in the conduct of the Ecuadorian litigation. Chevron did not disclose that original.01 1 . When it filed the instant case. Instead. 546876. even though that case was transferred to Ecuador in specific reliance on Chevron’s promises to honor the very Ecuadorian courts and judgment that this action now seeks to disparage and enjoin. Southern District.S. which had recently proceeded before Judge Kaplan.6 imposes a duty on counsel to “bring promptly to the attention of the clerk all facts” relevant to the determination of whether a newly filed case is “related” to a previously filed case. where it proceeded to judgment against Chevron. at Chevron’s insistence. or. This Chevron did not do.Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK Document 160 Filed 02/28/11 Page 4 of 24 Pursuant to Rule 15 of the Rules for the Division of Business Among District Judges. seeking recovery for environmental and personal injury from oil contamination in the Ecuadorian rain forest. I. for reference of this case to the Court’s Assignment Committee for reassignment according to Rule 4(b) of the Rules for the Division of Business Among District Judges. §1782 involving ancillary discovery proceedings. Defendants Steven R. By virtue of this “selective” related case disclosure. related case. Donziger and the Law Offices of Steven Donziger respectfully apply for the transfer of this case to the judge having the related case with the lowest docket number.. INTRODUCTION In 1993. Inc. Texaco. Now Chevron has turned around and sued the Ecuadorian nationals. a class action was filed in this Court by Ecuadorian nationals against Chevron’s predecessor in interest.
v. 142 F. Aguinda. and was also assigned to Judge Broderick. v. Following Judge Broderick’s death in May of 1995. and ordered further proceedings. Texaco. 2001. 945 F. Aguinda v. seeking recovery for environmental and personal injury caused by Texaco’s oil contamination of land and water in Ecuador. The Second Circuit reversed the dismissal. 94-CV-09266.01 2 . by its failure to disclose the truly lowest-numbered related case in its initial case filings. by lot or otherwise. Texaco Inc. A second case was brought in 1994 by 25. this Court’s Assignment Committee should review this matter and reassign this case. when Judge Rakoff dismissed the cases on grounds of forum non conveniens and international comity. accepting Texaco’s arguments as to the absence of corrupt 546876.N.D. Judge Rakoff made detailed findings.Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK Document 160 Filed 02/28/11 Page 5 of 24 Chevron should not. et al. Texaco. Jota v.D. Supp. Judge Rakoff. These cases. which Chevron asked Judge Rakoff to dismiss and send to Ecuador. should be decided by the judge who presided over the case in the first instance. Texaco Inc.Y. Rather.. In the alternative. 537 (S.3d 153 (2d Cir. A.N. Supp. This case was randomly assigned to Judge Broderick. Judge Rakoff dismissed the cases again. noting specifically that Texaco had now consented to jurisdiction in Ecuadorian and Peruvian courts.000 residents of Peru who lived downstream from Ecuador’s Oriente region. 93-CV-07527. with a class action complaint filed in this Court on behalf of 30. were litigated in Judge Broderick’s and Judge Rakoff’s courts for four years until 1996. 1996). After several more years of litigation. the cases were reassigned. on forum non conveniens grounds. II. That case. Jota v Texaco. 1993. against Texaco.” Aguinda. BACKGROUND REGARDING PRIOR LITIGATION 1993-2002: Litigation In Judge Broderick’s And Judge Rakoff’s Courts. be able to game the system to steer this action toward a judge it perceives as sympathetic. 2d 534.000 inhabitants of the Oriente region of Ecuador. The litigation of the indigenous Ecuadorian people against Chevron began on November 3. 157 F. ultimately to Judge Rakoff. et al. 2001). was deemed related to the Aguinda case. the issue of the enforceability of the judgment in the underlying environmental case. on May 30.Y. 1998). 2d 625 (S. and noting that “these cases have everything to do with Ecuador and nothing to do with the United States.
dated 2/25/2011 (“2/25/11 Peters Decl.L. filed in support of Donziger’s Opposition to Preliminary Injunction. 2002). Exhibit 25 at p.P. several times. Specifically: