## Facts

- Indigenous residents and farmers from Ecuador’s Oriente region (and some from Peru) sued Texaco in the Southern District of New York for alleged environmental contamination tied to oil operations from roughly 1964 to 1992.
- Plaintiffs alleged Texaco discharged toxic drilling byproducts into local land and waterways, harming the rainforest and residents’ health and welfare.
- Plaintiffs sought damages and equitable relief under multiple theories, including tort claims and claims invoking the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA).
- Texaco moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens, arguing Ecuador (and Peru for certain plaintiffs) was the proper forum and that key actors, including Ecuador and PetroEcuador, were not before the U.S. court.
- After an earlier appellate remand requiring a proper forum non conveniens analysis and consent to foreign jurisdiction, Texaco consented to jurisdiction in Ecuador and the district court again dismissed on forum non conveniens.
- Plaintiffs appealed from the renewed dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether Ecuador (and Peru for certain claims) was an adequate alternative forum given objections to the foreign judicial system and procedural differences.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in finding private and public interest factors strongly favored litigation abroad rather than in New York.
3. Whether the presence of ATCA claims required the U.S. court to retain the case despite forum non conveniens considerations.
4. Whether limitations and procedural features of Ecuadorian law (including lack of U.S.-style class actions and the operation of Ecuadorian Law 55) made the foreign forum inadequate.
5. Whether the dismissal should be conditioned to prevent prejudice from limitations defenses arising during U.S. litigation.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal on forum non conveniens, holding Ecuador (and Peru, as applicable) constituted adequate alternative fora once Texaco consented to jurisdiction there.
- The court held the district court acted within its discretion in weighing private interest factors, emphasizing that evidence, witnesses, and the alleged harms were located overwhelmingly in Ecuador.
- The court held the district court acted within its discretion in weighing public interest factors, emphasizing Ecuador’s dominant local and regulatory interest and the likelihood that Ecuadorian law would govern.
- The court rejected the argument that ATCA claims barred a forum non conveniens dismissal.
- The court modified the judgment to require Texaco to waive any statute of limitations defenses that matured between the filing of the U.S. actions and one year after the dismissal, providing plaintiffs time to refile abroad.

## Legal Principles

- A forum non conveniens dismissal requires an available and adequate alternative forum; a foreign forum is generally adequate if the defendant is amenable to process there and the forum provides a meaningful remedy.
- General allegations about corruption or inefficacy, without a showing that the forum is “no remedy at all,” do not render a foreign forum inadequate.
- Differences between U.S. and foreign procedures or remedies (including lack of class actions or less favorable substantive law) ordinarily do not defeat adequacy.
- Courts may dismiss on forum non conveniens even when federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists under ATCA; ATCA does not mandate a U.S. forum when the traditional balancing favors a foreign forum.
- Conditional dismissals, including consent-to-jurisdiction and limitations waivers, are proper tools to ensure plaintiffs can pursue claims in the foreign forum without unfair prejudice from time spent litigating in the United States.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld dismissal to Ecuador (and Peru as relevant) because the dispute centered on alleged environmental harms, evidence, and regulatory interests located abroad, and because the foreign courts were available and adequate once Texaco consented; the court further protected plaintiffs by requiring a limitations waiver to permit refiling within a specified period.


Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc., 303 F.3d 470 (2d Cir. 2002)