The North Dakota Supreme Court agreed with the owner of the Dakota Access pipeline that a lawsuit filed in Amsterdam involved the same underlying issues that a state court jury had decided last year.
(CN) – The North Dakota Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Greenpeace International cannot try to bring the same cases against an oil pipeline operator in a Dutch court for which a state court jury found the environmental organization liable last year.
At 4-1 DECISIONthe state’s top court reversed a judge’s findings that the cases before the Dutch court were not the same as those decided by a jury last year. The court said Dallas-based Energy Transfer is entitled to an injunction against the lawsuits to the extent that Greenpeace is seeking a judgment in the Netherlands that undermines the North Dakota jury’s verdict.
“GPI’s Dutch complaint, as stated, seeks a declaration that North Dakota’s action is ‘manifestly unfounded and abusive,’ and asks the Dutch court to find that GPI did not engage in illegal conduct, did not cause the Energy Transfer loss, and did not act with malice,” Judge Jerod Tufte wrote for the majority. “These are issues that the jury found against GPI after a three-week trial.”
The North Dakota jury had found for Netherlands-based Greenpeace International responsible for defamation and other claims brought by Energy Partners and awarded the pipeline company and its local subsidiary hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.
The state court case involved protests in 2016 and 2017 against the Dakota Access Pipeline and its Missouri River running upstream on the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Reservation. The 1,200-mile pipeline began operating in 2017 and can transport up to 750,000 barrels of oil from North Dakota’s shale oil fields to an oil terminal in Illinois.
Just before the North Dakota case went to trial, Greenpeace deposited filed an anti-SLAPP complaint in Amsterdam, arguing that Energy Transfer’s lawsuit was intended to bury the organization in legal fees and prevent it from pursuing its environmental advocacy mission.
In Thursday’s ruling, the North Dakota Supreme Court noted that U.S. and European anti-SLAPP laws — short for strategic lawsuit against public participation — work differently and that the European Union’s 2024 anti-SLAPP directive, unlike its American counterparts, authorizes an affirmative action for damages that can continue before the underlying case is resolved.
“Energy Transfer argues that the district court elevated form over substance,” Tufte said. “We agree.”
“The independence of a foreign proceeding designed to declare a domestic decision ‘manifestly unfounded’ undermines confidence in the domestic judicial process,” he added. “And the risk of an inconsistent foreign judgment is real, not speculative.”
However, the court’s decision does not rule out all litigation related to Greenpeace in the Netherlands. Claims based on federal power transfer dismissed blackmail the lawsuit and the alleged defamatory out-of-court statements that were not before the North Dakota jury will not be barred by the injunction.
Chief Justice Lisa Fair McEvers wrote in dissent that the judge who denied Energy Transfer’s request for a restraining order did not act arbitrarily, unreasonably or unconscionably and did not misapply the law.
“I don’t see North Dakota’s policy reasons as compelling enough to justify issuing an injunction,” she said. “The court selected a legal framework and considered relevant factors in deciding whether to issue an anti-suit ruling. In its order, the court explained its decision, which was reasoned and not arbitrary.”
A lawyer for Greenpeace and representatives for Energy Transfer did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the decision.
Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing arguments provides the latest on ongoing trials, major litigation and decisions in courts around the US and the world, while monthly Under the lights feeds legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.
