These cases were filed by residents of the Ecuadorian and Peruvian Amazon who were harmed by toxic pollution from Texaco's oil operations. Download pdf.

Texaco’s environmental destruction of the Ecuadorean Amazon has affected tens of thousands of people. The victims of Texaco’s abuses sought recourse in a consolidated lawsuit, Jota, et al and Aguinda, et al v. Texaco, filed, in part, under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), 28 U.S.C. § 1350.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs asserted that Texaco’s actions violated international law. The Aguinda plaintiffs alleged that, from 1972-1992, Texaco released massive quantities of highly toxic petroleum wastes into waters people used for bathing, fishing, drinking, and cooking, and that Texaco sprayed these wastes onto local roads. In addition, the plaintiffs claimed that Texaco's actions have had devastating impacts on their ability to maintain their traditional cultures. The Jota plaintiffs alleged that Texaco's pollution crossed the border causing thousands of persons similar injuries in an adjoining region of Peru.

In 2001, the district court dismissed the action based on forum non conveniens holding that litigation should proceed in Ecuador. Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc., 142 F. Supp. 2d 534 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). In conducting its forum non conveniens analysis, the district court concluded that plaintiffs would be unlikely to demonstrate that Texaco's acts are international torts actionable under the ATCA.

Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. EarthRights International (ERI) submitted a brief amicus curiae in support of the plaintiffs. In the brief, ERI asserts that environmental harms of the magnitude alleged by plaintiffs violate international law and that the court's failure to give weight to the U.S. interests in hearing this case expressed in the ATCA was legal error.

In an unfortunate decision, issued on August 16, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision to dismiss the case. The Court of Appeals, however, did not adopt the district court’s finding that plaintiffs would be unlikely to state a claim for a violation of international law. Rather, the Court held that it was unnecessary to consider that issue, because other public and private interest factors would require dismissal even if the ATCA expresses a strong U.S. policy interest in hearing this case. Given the Court of Appeals’ conclusion, the district court’s finding that massive environmental damage of the kind alleged is unlikely to be actionable under the ATCA was dicta.

ERI is disappointed that the Court of Appeals denied Texaco’s victims their day in court in Texaco’s home town. Moreover, ERI believes that the Court of Appeals did not give proper weight to the strong U.S. policy interest in providing a forum for the adjudication of international law violations under the ATCA.

Counsel for the plaintiffs in this action include the Law Offices of Cristobal Bonifaz. For more information on or to see other legal documents filed in these actions visit the plaintiffs' website.

Download pdf