Description: Action under the federal RICO law and common law by forest product company against Greenpeace.
-
Resolute Forest Products, Inc. v. Greenpeace International
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 04/22/2020 Order Download Motions for attorney's fees granted. Forest Product Companies to Pay $800,000 in Attorney’s Fees and Costs after Dismissal of RICO and Other Claims Against Greenpeace. The federal district court for the Northern District of California ordered a forest product company and affiliated companies to pay Greenpeace defendants more than $800,000 in attorney’s fees and costs after the defendants brought a successful anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) motion against the companies’ claims that the defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and were liable under state law, including for defamation and tortious interference with prospective and contractual business relations. The forest product company had alleged that Greenpeace’s campaign labeling the company a “Forest Destroyer” and a major contributor to climate change was “malicious, false, misleading, and without any reasonable factual basis.” In 2019, the court dismissed almost all of the companies’ claims, except for a single defamation claim and a related claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law arising from allegations related to a single set of statements. 09/24/2019 Order Download Defendants' motion for attorney's fees and costs denied in part and granted in part. 01/22/2019 Order Download Motions to dismiss and strike granted in part and denied in part. Federal Court Allowed Forest Products Companies to Proceed with Single Defamation Claim Against Greenpeace, Dismissed RICO Claim. The federal district court for the Northern District of California allowed a defamation claim by forest products companies to proceed against the environmental groups Greenpeace, Inc., Greenpeace International, and three Greenpeace employees. The court found that the companies alleged all the elements of a defamation claim, including actual malice, with respect to one alleged statement in which a Greenpeace employee said the companies had logged in the Montagnes Blanches in Quebec when she was on notice that the statement was not true. The court also allowed the companies to proceed with an Unfair Competition Law claim against these five defendants based on the viable defamation claim. The court, however, found that almost 300 alleged statements by the defendants were not actionable, including statements that the companies were “bad news for the climate” and that the companies’ practices had a large effect on climate change. The court also dismissed claims of trade libel, intentional interference with prospective and contractual economic relationships, and civil conspiracy as well as claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), finding that allegations of essential elements of these claims were missing from the complaint. The court also dismissed the other defendants from the action and granted the defendants’ motion to strike under California’s “anti-SLAPP” (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) law as to the claims dismissed for failure to state a claim. 05/11/2018 Reply Download Reply filed by defendants to plaintiffs' opposition to motion to dismiss. 05/11/2018 Reply Download Reply filed by Greenpeace defendants in support of motion to dismiss and motion to strike. 03/27/2018 Brief Download Memorandum of points and authorities filed by plaintiffs in opposition to motion to dismiss and motion to strike. 01/29/2018 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss and motion to strike filed by Greenpeace Fund, Inc. 01/29/2018 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss and motion to strike filed by Greenpeace defendants. 01/29/2018 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss and motion to strike filed by Stand defendants. 11/08/2017 Complaint Download Amended complaint filed. 10/16/2017 Order Download Motions to strike granted in part and motions to dismiss granted. California Federal Court Dismissed Paper Products Company’s RICO Lawsuit Against Environmental Groups. The federal district court for the Northern District of California dismissed an action brought against Greenpeace and another environmental advocacy organization by a forest products company and its affiliates. The forest products company claimed that the environmental groups had committed violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations (RICO) Act by falsely and maliciously labeling the companies as “forest destroyers” whose activities created significant climate risk. The court dismissed the RICO claims for failure to meet the heightened pleading standard required for claims sounding in fraud. In addition, the court found that the company had failed to show that the alleged RICO violations proximately caused injury to its business or property. The court also dismissed defamation and related state tort claims. The court concluded that the forest products company had not pleaded actual malice with the level of specificity required to sustain the state law claims. The court also granted motions to strike the state law claims pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statute. The court granted the company leave to amend its complaint with 21 days. -
Resolute Forest Products, Inc. v. Greenpeace International
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 05/16/2017 Order Download Request to transfer granted. Georgia Federal Court Transferred Forest-Products Companies’ RICO Lawsuit Against Greenpeace to California. The federal district court for the Southern District of Georgia transferred forest-products companies’ lawsuit alleging federal and state Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claims against Greenpeace International and other organizations (Greenpeace) to the Northern District of California. The forest-products companies asserted that the defendants illegally attacked their forestry practices, including by suggesting that the companies created climate change risks by harvesting the Boreal forest. The Georgia federal court found that the companies’ alleged loss of Georgia customers had not occurred in its district and that a trip by the defendants to the district did not give rise to the plaintiffs’ claims. Because two Greenpeace employees who were integral to the plaintiffs’ forestry campaign were based in San Francisco, the court concluded that that a substantial part of events giving rise to the plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the Northern District of California and that venue was therefore proper there. 01/23/2017 Reply Download Reply brief filed by Greenpeace Fund, Inc. in support of motion to dismiss. 01/23/2017 Reply Download Reply brief filed by Greenpeace in support of motion to strike and motion to dismiss. 09/15/2016 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by environmental organizations. 09/15/2016 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 11 media companies. 05/31/2016 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Forest Products Company Sued Greenpeace Under RICO for “Forest Destroyer” Campaign. A company in the forest products industry and six of its subsidiaries sued Greenpeace, another environmental organization, and a number of individual employees of the organizations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations (RICO) Act in the federal district court for the Southern District of Georgia. The plaintiffs alleged that Greenpeace and the other defendants mounted a campaign identifying the forest products company as a “Forest Destroyer.” The complaint’s allegations included that the defendants told a “whopping lie” by suggesting that the plaintiffs created climate change risks by harvesting the Boreal forest. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants created and disseminated false and misleading reports and information concerning the plaintiffs, “under the guise of protecting the environment, but in truth, for the unlawful purpose of soliciting fraudulent donations from the public at-large.” In addition to RICO claims, the plaintiffs asserted claims for defamation, tortious interference with prospective business relations, tortious interference with contractual relations, common law civil conspiracy, and trademark dilution. 05/31/2016 Not Available Download Appendix filed.