Ogala et al v. Chevron Corporation et al

Filing 94

ORDER granting 84 Motion to Strike 82 Amended Complaint (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

9
10

NATTO IYELA GBARABE, et al,
Plaintiffs,

11
12
13
14

v.
CHEVRON CORPORATION,
Defendant.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-cv-00173-SC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO STRIKE THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINT

16
Now before the Court is Defendant's motion to strike or
17
dismiss Plaintiffs' third amended complaint.

ECF No. 84 ("Mot.").

18
The motion is fully briefed and suitable for determination without
19
oral argument per Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

ECF Nos. 89 ("Opp'n");

20
91 ("Reply").

The hearing has already been vacated.

ECF No. 92.

21
For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is GRANTED.
22
On January 16, 2012, an explosion occurred on the KS Endeavor
23
drilling rig, which was drilling for natural gas in the North Apoi
24
Field off of the coast of Nigeria.

The explosion caused a fire

25
that burned for forty-six days.

ECF No. 45 ("SAC") ¶ 1.

26
Plaintiffs are persons who reside in the Niger Delta region of
27
southern Nigeria.
28

Id. ¶¶ 6, 11.

The named Plaintiffs claim to

1

represent a class of 65,000 people who were affected by the

2

explosion, fire, and resulting environmental damage.

3

Plaintiffs allege that the KS Endeavor was operated by KS Drilling

4

under the management of Chevron Nigeria Limited ("CNL"), which in

5

turn acted at Defendant Chevron's direction.

6

named as a defendant in this action.

Id. ¶ 8.

Id. ¶ 5.

CNL is not

Id. ¶ 16.

7

The Court dismissed Plaintiffs' original complaint in part

8

because the named plaintiffs purported to represent some 65,000

9

other members of the Nigerian communities affected by the explosion

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

and fire.

11

Plaintiffs had argued that it is common practice in Nigeria for

12

large groups of plaintiffs to sign onto a lawsuit by executing

13

powers of attorney.

14

however, "the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that an

15

action be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest."

16

Compl. Dismissal Order at 11; see also Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego,

17

114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that power of attorney

18

did not give plaintiff the right to assert another's constitutional

19

claims); Advanced Magnetics, Inc. v. Bayfront Partners, Inc., 106

20

F.3d 11, 18 (2d Cir. 1997) ("[A] power of attorney does not enable

21

the grantee to bring suit in his own name.").

22

leave to amend, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint as a

23

class action.

24

ECF No. 30 ("Compl. Dismissal Order") at 10-11.

ECF No. 25 at 17-18.

As the Court explained,

After being granted

ECF No. 34 ("FAC").

On Defendant's second motion to dismiss, the Court dismissed

25

Plaintiffs' FAC because it failed to allege that the named

26

plaintiffs had suffered injury in fact.

27

Order") at 9-12.

28

2

ECF No. 44 ("FAC Dismissal

1

On Defendant's third motion to dismiss, the Court dismissed

2

Plaintiffs' public nuisance claim with prejudice and granted

3

Chevron's motion to strike the second amended complaint ("SAC") to

4

the extent that it asserted claims on behalf of communities rather

5

than the communities' individual members.

6

Dismissal Order") at 9.

7
8
9

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

ECF No. 56 ("SAC

On March 18, 2015, the parties stipulated and the Court
entered an order stating the following:
June 1, 2015 will be the deadline for plaintiffs' counsel
to file the appropriate pleadings for the purpose of
limiting the currently identified lead plaintiffs and/or
prospective class members to those deemed by plaintiffs'
counsel to have sustainable claims. If plaintiffs intend
to narrow the definition of the class from the
description in the CMC Statement filed January 23, 2015,
they shall do so in an appropriate pleading by June 1,
2015.
ECF No. 76 ("Stip.") ¶ 1.
On June 1, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their third amended

16

complaint without Defendant's consent or leave of court.

17

82 ("TAC").

18

Chevron now moves to strike or dismiss the TAC.

19

ECF No.

The TAC removes five and adds eleven named plaintiffs.

Chevron argues that Plaintiff should have sought leave of the

20

Court prior to filing the TAC pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

21

Procedure 15.

22

plaintiffs and is appropriate pursuant to the terms of the

23

stipulated order on March 18, 2015.

24

below, the Court agrees with Chevron.

25

Plaintiffs respond that the TAC names no new

For the reasons set forth

Plaintiffs assert that Defendant's motion to strike should be

26

denied because "[t]he new lead plaintiffs are merely those

27

individuals drawn from the original plaintiffs in this case

28

. . . ."

Opp'n at 10.

Plaintiffs seem to be suggesting that the

3

1

new named plaintiffs are not actually new because they were among

2

the 65,000 community members that the original named plaintiffs

3

claimed to represent through power of attorney.

4

rejected this argument at least twice, and it admonishes Plaintiffs

5

for raising it yet again.

6

Defendant's first motion to dismiss, "the Federal Rules of Civil

7

Procedure require that an action be prosecuted in the name of the

8

real party in interest."

9

SAC Dismissal Order at 7 ("Chevron's motion to strike is granted

The Court has

As explained in the Court's order on

Compl. Dismissal Order at 11; see also

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

with respect to any claims in the SAC asserted on behalf of

11

communities rather than the communities' individual members.").

12

Plaintiffs' argument that the TAC names no new plaintiffs is

13

without merit.

14

Plaintiffs also argue that the TAC is appropriate pursuant to

15

the terms of the stipulated order entered on March 18, 2015.

16

order states that "June 1, 2015 will be the deadline for

17

plaintiffs' counsel to file the appropriate pleadings for the

18

purpose of limiting the currently identified lead plaintiffs and/or

19

prospective class members to those deemed by plaintiffs' counsel to

20

have sustainable claims."

21

does not limit the named plaintiffs.

22

eleven new named plaintiffs.

23

scope of the March 18 order.

Stip. ¶ 1 (emphasis added).

The

The TAC

On the contrary, it adds

The TAC therefore falls outside the

24

Chevron also asks the Court to deny Plaintiffs leave to amend.

25

Given that Plaintiffs have not asked the Court for leave to file an

26

amended complaint, Chevron's request is premature.

27

consider Chevron's arguments if and when Plaintiffs file an amended

28

complaint that complies with Rule 15.

4

The Court will

1

In sum, Rule 15 essentially provides two methods for the pre-

2

trial amendment of a pleading: (1) a party may amend as a matter of

3

course within 21 days after serving the pleading or within 21 days

4

after service of a responsive pleading; or (2) with respect to all

5

other amendments, a party must obtain the written consent of the

6

opposing party or the court's leave. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)–(2).

7

The TAC does not fall into either category.

8

GRANTS Defendant's motion to strike and STRIKES Plaintiff's TAC.

Accordingly, the Court

9

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

Dated: July 28, 2015

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5