Resolute Forest Products, Inc. et al v. Greenpeace International et al

Filing 104

ORDER granting 57 Motion to Change Venue; granting 62 Motion to Dismiss. The Clerk is Ordered to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Clerk is further Ordered to close this case. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 05/16/2017. (thb)

IN THE

UNITED

FOR THE

STATES

DISTRICT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT

OF

COURT

GEORGIA

AUGUSTA DIVISION

RESOLUTE FOREST PRODUCTS,
et al.,

INC.

*

Plaintiffs,

*

v.

*
GREENPEACE

INTERNATIONAL

CV

116-071

May

2016

*

et al.,

*

Defendants.

*

ORDER

Plaintiffs
filed

their

Defendants
Since

illegally

then,

Court

the

criticized
have

issues.

of

24.)

in

complaint,

Plaintiffs'

filed over

request

to

alleging

that

pages

transfer

practices.

of

argument,

this

case

to

Background

the forest-products

different types of paper.
cities,

they

forestry

300

They plant and harvest trees and make,

several

when

California.

I.

are

in

After a thorough review of the record,

Defendants'

District

Plaintiffs

litigation

318-paragraph

parties

GRANTS

the Northern

this

124-page,

raising various

the

began

(Id.)

including Augusta,

industry.

(Compl.

SI

among other things,

Plaintiffs have locations in
Georgia.

(Id.)

Defendants

Greenpeace
Inc.,

International,

and

ForestEthics

organizations.

employee

of

and

(Id.

Skar

Rolf

Matthew
(Id.

SIS!

such,

Greenpeace,
are

SIS!

31-34.)

ForestEthics,
are

Daggett
35-39.)

an

of

Defendant

they often publicly

Daniel

of

or

Todd

Inc.,

Paglia

companies

an

Moas,

Defendant

International.

are environmental activists.

assail

is

Amy

and

Greenpeace

Fund,

charitable

Brindis,

Greenpeace,

employee

Defendants

Greenpeace

nonprofit

Defendants

employees

is

all

Inc.,

that

And as

they think are

environmentally irresponsible.

In 2013,
campaign

Defendants

against

campaign,

began the

Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs

"Resolute:

(Id.

contend,

1

Forest

79.)

As

Defendants

part

These

Plaintiffs

(Id.

to

lose

attacks,

according

to

customers

and millions

of

falsely

Plaintiffs of harming the Boreal Forest in Canada.
81-87.)

Destroyer7'

accused

(See id.

Plaintiffs,

of

this

dollars

in

51

caused
revenue.

It 17.)

In

response

Plaintiffs

filed

to

the

this

Resolute:

lawsuit,

Forest

alleging,

Destroyer
among

campaign,

other

things,

federal and state Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act

("RICO")

set

out

to

claims.

Plaintiffs

illegally destroy

contend

Plaintiffs'

that

Defendants

business.

have

Defendants

now

move

to

transfer

California.1

this

case

Under

"[o]nly

28

U.S.C.

district

omissions

the

rise

the

[a]nd

place,
events

are

for

to be

claim

places

considered."

(11th Cir.

District

of

part

proper

of

the

in

where

rise

the

to

a

events

Brick Co.

claim

have

v.

or

Thus,

^substantial part'

Jenkins

"a

events

occurred . . . ."

give

2003).

is

are

taken
of the

Bremer,

321

The venue analysis therefore

stronger connections than the minimum-contacts test used

evaluating

personal

with

"because

flavor

its

jurisdiction

Sept.

substantial

directly

the

venue

locations hosting a

(disagreeing

Bell

to

that

of

only those

1371

§ 1391(b)(2),
a

events

relevant[,]

demands

Northern

Discussion

in which

giving

F.3d 1366,

the

(Docs. 57, 62.)
II.

judicial

to

v.

22,

another
was

analysis

Rosen,

2015)

CV

jurisdiction.
court's

that

of

rather

214-127,

2015

("[T]he venue

application

a

than

See

^minimum

a
WL

proper
5595806,

analysis

under

id.
of

at

§ 1391(b)(2)

contacts'

venue
at

1372

personal

analysis'') ;

*4

Section

(S.D.

Ga.

1391(b)(2)

generally requires a greater level of relevant activities by the
defendants

than

the

^minimum

contacts'

analysis

for

personal

jurisdiction.") .

1 Defendants also move to strike Plaintiffs' complaint under O.C.G.A.
§ 9-11-11.1 and to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for failure'to state a claim.
(Docs. 55, 56, 60, 61, 62.)
But because venue is not proper in this
district,

the Court does not address those arguments.

A. Venue is Improper in the Southern District of Georgia

Defendants
because

here.
the

no

argue

events

that

giving

venue
rise

is

to

improper

in

district

claims

Plaintiffs'

this

occurred

Plaintiffs contend that venue is proper here because
Resolute:

Forest

Destroyer

campaign

caused

Plaintiffs

lose a number of Georgia-affiliated customers and
traveled

to

Augusta

to

spread

false

(2)

(1)
to

Defendants

information

about

Plaintiffs.

1. Plaintiffs'

Alleged Loss of Customers in Georgia

Plaintiffs
associates

allege

"made

that

false

Defendants

and

and

misleading

other

Greenpeace

statements"

Plaintiffs to five Georgia-affiliated companies,

causing some of

the companies to cut ties with Plaintiffs.

(Compl.

They

Brooks,

allege,

Greenpeace

of

for

employee,

Plaintiffs,

statements

campaigns

The
and

which

Resolute's

As

that

Brooks

another example,

Home

Depot,

in-store

Defendants

customers,

202-206.)

with

And,

a

Plaintiffs

a customer

and

misleading

the

Boreal

Forest."

Plaintiffs allege that Brooks

another

(Id.

customer,
if

1 201.)

Kimberly-Clark

information

nonparty

false

in

demonstrations

targeted
false

"made

operations

continued to buy from Resolute."
that

Richard

S[f 198-207.)

held a conference call with YP,

during

about

(Id. 5 200.)

threatened

example,

about

about

allege,

"with

The

Home

market
Depot

They also claim
and

P&G,

Plaintiffs.

Defendants

other
(Id.

SI ST

"prevented

Resolute

from securing a large contract with one of the world's

leading manufacturers
(Id.

argue

Georgia because

(1)

headquarters

headquartered
with

in

that

paper,

Georgia

in

in

Tucker,

Atlanta,

Roswell,

connection

Georgia,

Georgia,

Pacific . . . ."

this

district:

located

in

the

Northern

located

in

the

Middle

Defendants'

Plaintiffs

have

failed

(3)

Tucker,

to

with

of

to

Depot

is

communicated

the

company's

supplied

paper

to

Georgia Pacific is based
do

not

Georgia.
customers

that

a

allege

any

Atlanta

and

Georgia,

these

establish

Home

from

Roswell,

of

connected

Defendants

Plaintiffs

District

The

Plaintiffs

District

communications

(2)

and (5)

But

are

the conference call from

working

(4)

Georgia,

Georgia.

to

contacts

Georgia,

executives

P&G's plant in Albany,
Atlanta,

these

YP participated in

Kimberly-Clark

offices

in

tissue

SI 207. )

Plaintiffs

its

of

are

and

Albany

is

even

if

Thus,
are

actionable,

substantial

part

of

the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this district.
2. Defendants'

Plaintiffs

Trip to Augusta

allege

that

Daggett,

Skar,

and

Brooks

traveled

to Augusta and "employed on-the-ground tactics aimed at harming
Resolute's

relationships

with

key constituents."

(Id.

1

208.)

And Plaintiffs cite this trip in support of their RICO claims.
Under 18 U.S.C.

"unlawful

for

any

§ 1962(c),

person

the relevant RICO statute,

employed

by

or

associated

it is

with

any

enterprise ... to
indirectly,

in the

a

of

conduct

pattern

activity"

§ 1341,

under

18

racketeering

among

wire

U.S.C.

enterprise

directly

other

things,
18

1951.

§

U.S.C.

18

Resolute:

through

affairs

activity . . . ."

fraud under

contend that Defendants'

an

participate,

conduct of such enterprise's

includes,

U.S.C.

or

which

§

through

"Racketeering

mail

U.S.C.

or

fraud

§ 1343,

under

and

1961(1).

18

extortion
Plaintiffs

Forest Destroyer campaign was

Defendants

committed

fraud

and

extortion.

"Mail or wire

fraud occurs when a person

(1)

intentionally

participates in a scheme to defraud another of money or property
and

(2)

Am.

Dental Ass'n v.

extortion

another,

right."

fraud

Augusta.

as

violence,

and

of

extortion,

these

(Compl. SI 208.)

F.3d 1283,

1290

quotation

marks

obtaining

of

scheme."

(11th Cir.
omitted).

property

from

induced by wrongful use of actual or
or

their

fear,

or under

brief

addressing

Plaintiffs

they fail
claims.

Brooks

"the

of that

color

of

official

§ 1951(b)(2).

sections

But

605

(internal

defined

force,

the

and

support

is

in furtherance

Cigna Corp.,

omitted)

18 U.S.C.

In

or wires

with his consent,

threatened

Skar,

the mails

(citation

2010)
And

uses

visited

cite

to explain how
According

Augusta

to

to

their

Defendants'

the
the

claims

of

trip

to

events of the
complaint,

"communicate

trip

Daggett,

falsehoods."

Before the trip, Defendants circulated an email

declaring
Resolute
and

the
to

event

make

inviting

Twitter.

Augusta

protecting

people

(Id.)

stating

in

to

"[f]ive
deliver

"projected

site

any

on
.

.

.

."

information

"falsehoods"
factual

fraud

or

(Id.)

Defendants

basis

some

to

about

from

the

extortion before,

infer

during,

and

second email

trekked

to

shareholders

Nor

and

however,

were

do

they

Defendants

after

at best,

priority"

they

messages

or

ask

which

not,

that

to

Facebook

messages,"

do

these

the allegations in the complaint,

key

on

company's

communicated.
to

a

activists

Plaintiffs

which

event

simple

the

what

Forest

they circulated a

Greenpeace

Augusta . . . to

"opportunity

Boreal

support

After the trip,

that

directors

the

their

the

provide

or

what

provide

a

committed

trip.

Rather,

support the inference

that Defendants organized and held a protest in Augusta.

Thus,

Plaintiffs

gives

have

not

established that

the

trip

to Augusta

rise to a claim for purposes of venue under § 1391(b) (2).

2
Plaintiffs also argue (1) that they felt some of the campaign's
effects in this district, and (2) citing Delong Equipment Company v. Washing
Mills Abrasive Co., 840 F.2d 843 (11th Cir. 1988), that attendance at a

"conspiratorial meeting"

is

sufficient to establish venue.

But that

some

harm was felt here, without more, does not show that a substantial part of
the events giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims occurred in this district.
See

Rosen, 2015 WL 5595806, at *5 ("The harm to Plaintiffs' reputations in this
District, by itself, would likely not be a sufficiently substantial event to
establish venue, because the inquiry into relevant events focuses on the
actions

of

Defendants.").

And

Plaintiffs

have

not

pleaded

"conspiratorial meeting" occurred during the May 2015 trip to Augusta.

that

a

B. Venue is Proper in the Northern District of California
Defendants

ask

Northern District

the

Court

to

transfer

of California under 28

this

U.S.C.

case

to

§ 1406(a),

the

which

allows a court to transfer a case brought

in the wrong district

to

been

any

case,

district

"in

which

Defendants argue,

District

of

the case,

California.

it

could

have

brought."

could have been brought

And

although

they

This

in the Northern

oppose

transferring

Plaintiffs do not argue that the Northern District of

California is an improper venue.

According to

Greenpeace,
States."

Defendants,

Inc.'s

(Doc.

forestry

62-1 St 4. )

Skar and Brindis

campaign

Indeed,

are "integral to

efforts

Brindis,

in

Skar,

the

United

and Moas made

the majority of the allegedly improper statements that were made
in

the

United

Greenpeace,

States.

Inc.'s

Francisco area.3
rise

to

San

Thus,

Plaintiffs'

And

Brindis

Francisco

and

Skar

office

and

both

live

work

in

from

the

San

a substantial part of the events giving

claims

occurred

in

the

Northern

District

of

California.

In

sum,

because

Plaintiffs'

alleged

loss

affiliated customers did not occur in this district,

Plaintiffs have failed to plead that Defendants'

gives rise to any of Plaintiffs'

3

claims,

of

and because

trip to Augusta

Plaintiffs have failed

Moas lives in Nevada but regularly travels to Greenpeace,

Francisco office for work.

(Doc.

62-1 14.)

Georgia-

Inc.'s San

to
to

establish that
their

improper

claims

in

occurred

this

GRANTS Defendants'
District

of

a substantial part

district

in

this

under

the

United

California.

district.

giving rise

Venue

§ 1391(b)(2),

and

is

the

thus

Court

California.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendants'
57,

the events

request to transfer this case to the Northern

Ill.

(Docs.

of

62.)

The

States

The

Clerk

District

Clerk

is

is

request to transfer this case.

ORDERED

Court

for

to
the

TRANSFER this
Northern

further ORDERED to CLOSE

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia this

case

to

District

of

this

case.

/ffi^day of May,

2017.

J. RANBAJ/HALLr CHIEF JUDGE
UNITEtTSTATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN

DISTRICT

OF GEORGIA