BISMARCK, N.D. (KFYR) – The legal fight between Greenpeace and Energy Transfer over protests surrounding the Dakota Access Pipeline is not over.<\/p>\n
The North Dakota Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a four to one decision in favor of Energy Transfer, saying a district judge should issue a narrowly tailored order limiting parts of a related lawsuit filed by Greenpeace International in the Netherlands.<\/p>\n
Energy Transfer sued Greenpeace in North Dakota. That case went to trial, and a jury found Greenpeace liable, awarding Energy Transfer $666 million. That amount was later reduced to $345 million by a judge.<\/p>\n
Greenpeace International filed its Netherlands case before the North Dakota trial began. The Dutch case alleges the North Dakota lawsuit qualifies as a SLAPP action, short for Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, and seeks relief under Dutch and European law.<\/p>\n
Energy Transfer asked the North Dakota courts for an antisuit injunction, which would stop Greenpeace International from pursuing the Dutch case. A lower court initially refused, saying the issues were different and noting North Dakota does not recognize SLAPP or anti-SLAPP actions.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court reversed that decision. The justices said the district court applied the wrong legal framework and directed the court to enter a narrowly tailored antisuit injunction.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court said the district court should block Greenpeace International from pursuing any claims in the Netherlands that require a finding the North Dakota case was \u201cmanifestly unfounded,\u201d meaning the lawsuit lacked legal foundation.<\/p>\n
The opinion also said the injunction should not bar separate claims that raise independent issues.<\/p>\n
The court also pointed to the timing of the Netherlands filing. Greenpeace International filed its Dutch summons two weeks before the North Dakota trial began, and the justices said the timing supports an inference the Dutch action is vexatious.<\/p>\n
Chief Justice Fair McEvers was the lone dissent, writing that the district court acted within its discretion in denying Energy Transfer\u2019s request. She added that North Dakota\u2019s interest in the matter was not compelling enough to justify an antisuit injunction.<\/p>\n