## Facts

- Texaco began oil operations in Ecuador’s Lago Agrio region in the 1960s; Chevron later acquired Texaco.
- In 1993, Ecuadorian residents filed environmental claims in the Southern District of New York; the case was dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds in favor of litigation in Ecuador.
- In 2003, the residents sued Chevron in Ecuador, and in 2011 an Ecuadorian trial court entered a multi-billion-dollar judgment against Chevron.
- Chevron sued Steven Donziger and associated individuals/entities in the Southern District of New York, asserting civil RICO and related state-law claims that the Ecuadorian judgment was procured through racketeering, including fraudulent expert submissions, coercive damages tactics, and a corrupt arrangement involving ghostwriting the judgment.
- After a bench trial, the district court found that defendants had procured the Ecuadorian judgment through fraud (including bribery and ghostwriting) and entered in personam equitable relief, including a constructive trust over proceeds traceable to the judgment and an injunction barring defendants from enforcing or profiting from enforcement of the judgment in the United States.
- Defendants appealed, contesting standing, the availability of private equitable relief under RICO, international comity concerns, and personal jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether the threatened enforcement of an allegedly fraudulently procured foreign judgment creates Article III injury sufficient for standing to seek equitable relief under civil RICO.
2. Whether civil RICO authorizes private plaintiffs to obtain equitable relief such as injunctions and constructive trusts.
3. Whether in personam equitable relief restricting U.S. enforcement or profits from a foreign judgment impermissibly nullifies the foreign judgment or violates international comity.
4. Whether the district court had personal jurisdiction to impose the challenged in personam equitable relief.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment.
- Chevron had Article III standing because the substantial threat of enforcement of an allegedly fraudulently procured judgment constituted a cognizable injury, and the requested relief would redress that injury.
- Civil RICO does not categorically bar private equitable relief; the injunction and constructive trust entered were permissible remedies.
- The relief did not violate international comity because it did not purport to invalidate the foreign judgment; it regulated the conduct and proceeds of parties subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
- The court rejected the personal-jurisdiction challenges as a basis for reversal and upheld the in personam relief directed at defendants amenable to jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- A real and substantial threat of enforcement of an allegedly fraudulently procured judgment can constitute injury in fact for Article III standing, where equitable relief would prevent or mitigate that harm.
- Civil RICO permits private plaintiffs to seek equitable remedies, including injunctions and constructive trusts, when consistent with traditional equitable principles and necessary to prevent ongoing or threatened RICO-related injury.
- International comity is not offended when a U.S. court grants in personam relief against parties who engaged in fraud, without declaring the foreign judgment invalid or directing foreign tribunals.
- Injunctive relief may be framed to bar enforcement efforts and profiteering in U.S. courts while stopping short of restraining foreign courts or adjudicating the foreign judgment’s validity as a matter of foreign law.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld a district court’s civil RICO judgment finding that the defendants procured a foreign judgment through fraud and affirmed in personam equitable remedies—an injunction against U.S. enforcement-related activity and a constructive trust over related proceeds—holding that Chevron had standing, private equitable relief was available under RICO, comity was not violated, and jurisdictional objections did not warrant reversal.


Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 833 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2016)