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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?