January 31, 2008
Rejecting multiple challenges by Defendant Chevron Corporation and two American
subsidiaries, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Kevin McCarthy ruled yesterday that 5 Nigerian villagers are entitled to a trial of their claims that Chevron’s use of the notoriously violent Nigerian military to patrol the company’s oil production facilities in Nigeria constitutes an illegal business practice under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“the UCL”). The two orders issued yesterday rebuff the last of numerous motions Chevron has asserted since the case was filed to keep these claims from going to trial in the case of Larry Bowoto, et al., v. ChevronTexaco Corporation, S.F. Sup. Ct. No. CGC-03-417580.
Two of plaintiffs’ team of attorneys, Theresa Traber and Barbara Hadsell, hailed the
Court’s recent rulings as the “latest in a string of victories by impoverished Nigerian villagers against one of the largest and most profitable corporations in the world. Chevron cannot hide from the consequences of using the brutal Nigerian military to stamp out dissent.” As Judge McCarthy noted, the plaintiffs’ evidence showed that “simply residing in the vicinity of Chevron installations in the Niger Delta can subject residents, even those who do not initiate contact with Chevron, to losses of property and other abuses.’”
In the first of two orders, the Court rejected Chevron’s argument that the UCL could not be invoked to protect against injuries which occurred outside California, reaffirming that theUCL bars unlawful business practices which cause injury outside the state “so long as some of the challenged conduct occurred in California or some benefit of the challenged conduct accrues to a California defendant.” Following a 2004 decision in a parallel federal case against Chevron and based on “a substantial amount of evidence,” the Court found that Chevron exercised an “unusual degree of control” over the security practices of its Nigerian subsidiary, Chevron Nigeria Ltd. (CNL), which employs and pays the Nigerian military as security guards.
The Court held that Chevron wielded this power from California by issuing security policy from its headquarters, being “intimately involved with CNL’s Security Department,” and approving the military payments. The Court also found that because Chevron “benefitted in a very direct way from CNL’s revenues” which were “made possible . . . by the military’s wrongful use of force to quell unrest among Nigerians,” the UCL should govern the legality of Chevron’s security practices.
The Court’s second order rejected Chevron’s contentions that there is no remedy
available to the Nigerian villagers. The Court cited to evidence that plaintiffs’ villages were attacked and burned to the ground by Chevron’s security forces even though they were “minding their own business,” noting that Chevron had submitted no evidence that the challenged security practices had ended since the lawsuit was filed. Thus, an injunction to prohibit further illegal and dangerous practices was available to plaintiffs.
The lawsuit was filed in February, 2003 by 5 Nigerian villagers who were the victims of brutal attacks by Chevron’s paid security forces on two small villages in 1999 and on peaceful protesters in 1998. In addition to seeking an order barring Chevron’s illegal practices in the state court action, these villagers and others are suing for damages in a parallel federal action, which is set for trial in late September, 2008 before U.S. District Judge Susan Illston. The state court action has recently been transferred to Judge Harold E. Kahn and will likely be scheduled for trial in a hearing set for February 29, 2008.
CONTACT: Barbara Enloe Hadsell, 626-585-9600, or Theresa M. Traber, 626-585-9611
subsidiaries, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Kevin McCarthy ruled yesterday that 5 Nigerian villagers are entitled to a trial of their claims that Chevron’s use of the notoriously violent Nigerian military to patrol the company’s oil production facilities in Nigeria constitutes an illegal business practice under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“the UCL”). The two orders issued yesterday rebuff the last of numerous motions Chevron has asserted since the case was filed to keep these claims from going to trial in the case of Larry Bowoto, et al., v. ChevronTexaco Corporation, S.F. Sup. Ct. No. CGC-03-417580.
Two of plaintiffs’ team of attorneys, Theresa Traber and Barbara Hadsell, hailed the
Court’s recent rulings as the “latest in a string of victories by impoverished Nigerian villagers against one of the largest and most profitable corporations in the world. Chevron cannot hide from the consequences of using the brutal Nigerian military to stamp out dissent.” As Judge McCarthy noted, the plaintiffs’ evidence showed that “simply residing in the vicinity of Chevron installations in the Niger Delta can subject residents, even those who do not initiate contact with Chevron, to losses of property and other abuses.’”
In the first of two orders, the Court rejected Chevron’s argument that the UCL could not be invoked to protect against injuries which occurred outside California, reaffirming that theUCL bars unlawful business practices which cause injury outside the state “so long as some of the challenged conduct occurred in California or some benefit of the challenged conduct accrues to a California defendant.” Following a 2004 decision in a parallel federal case against Chevron and based on “a substantial amount of evidence,” the Court found that Chevron exercised an “unusual degree of control” over the security practices of its Nigerian subsidiary, Chevron Nigeria Ltd. (CNL), which employs and pays the Nigerian military as security guards.
The Court held that Chevron wielded this power from California by issuing security policy from its headquarters, being “intimately involved with CNL’s Security Department,” and approving the military payments. The Court also found that because Chevron “benefitted in a very direct way from CNL’s revenues” which were “made possible . . . by the military’s wrongful use of force to quell unrest among Nigerians,” the UCL should govern the legality of Chevron’s security practices.
The Court’s second order rejected Chevron’s contentions that there is no remedy
available to the Nigerian villagers. The Court cited to evidence that plaintiffs’ villages were attacked and burned to the ground by Chevron’s security forces even though they were “minding their own business,” noting that Chevron had submitted no evidence that the challenged security practices had ended since the lawsuit was filed. Thus, an injunction to prohibit further illegal and dangerous practices was available to plaintiffs.
The lawsuit was filed in February, 2003 by 5 Nigerian villagers who were the victims of brutal attacks by Chevron’s paid security forces on two small villages in 1999 and on peaceful protesters in 1998. In addition to seeking an order barring Chevron’s illegal practices in the state court action, these villagers and others are suing for damages in a parallel federal action, which is set for trial in late September, 2008 before U.S. District Judge Susan Illston. The state court action has recently been transferred to Judge Harold E. Kahn and will likely be scheduled for trial in a hearing set for February 29, 2008.
CONTACT: Barbara Enloe Hadsell, 626-585-9600, or Theresa M. Traber, 626-585-9611
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });