## Facts

- Ecuadorian residents and a local community sued Texaco-related entities, alleging oil operations in Ecuador contaminated the air, soil, and water and caused personal and property injury.
- Plaintiffs sought damages, injunctive remediation requiring restoration of affected land, and a court-administered trust fund to finance medical monitoring and related relief.
- Ecuador’s government regulated the challenged oil activities and formally objected to adjudication in the United States, requesting dismissal.
- Plaintiffs filed in Texas state court; defendants removed to federal court.
- Plaintiffs moved to remand; defendants moved to dismiss (or for summary judgment). Plaintiffs also sought stays to conduct discovery and address counsel changes.

## Issues

1. Whether removal to federal court was proper such that remand to state court should be denied.
2. Whether the action should be dismissed under international comity principles in light of Ecuador’s regulation of the conduct and its formal objection to U.S. litigation.
3. Whether the case should be dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds because Ecuador was a more appropriate forum for claims centered on Ecuador-based conduct, injury, evidence, and witnesses.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to remand, holding removal was procedurally proper.
- The court denied requested stays, reasoning the pending motions presented primarily legal questions not requiring discovery.
- The court dismissed the action without reaching the merits, relying principally on international comity and forum non conveniens.
- The court concluded Ecuador, not a U.S. court, was the proper forum to address alleged environmental harm and the requested remediation and oversight.

## Legal Principles

- International comity supports dismissal where adjudication would intrude on a foreign sovereign’s regulatory authority over conduct and environmental conditions within its territory, particularly when that sovereign formally objects to the litigation.
- Forum non conveniens permits dismissal when an adequate alternative forum exists and the balance of private and public interest factors strongly favors trial in the foreign forum.
- In transnational environmental tort disputes, requests for broad injunctive relief and ongoing court supervision in the foreign state can weigh heavily toward dismissal because they risk displacing the foreign sovereign’s governance of its natural resources and environmental policy.

## Conclusion

The court retained federal jurisdiction after removal but dismissed Ecuador-centered environmental claims, holding that deference to Ecuador’s sovereign regulatory interests and the forum non conveniens balance required litigation (if any) to proceed in Ecuador rather than in a U.S. court.


Sequihua v. Texaco, Inc., 847 F. Supp. 61 (S.D. Tex. 1994)