Amazon Pollution Suit Belongs in Peru, Calif. Judge Says

A California federal judge has dismissed a case brought by indigenous Achuar villagers from Northern Peru who claimed that Occidental Petroleum Corp. and a subsidiary contaminated the rivers and lakes in the Peruvian Amazon.

U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez granted the defendants' motion to dismiss based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which allows a federal court to decline jurisdiction where there is a more appropriate forum available to the parties.

Judge Gutierrez said Peru would be a more appropriate forum since witnesses, evidence and the plaintiffs are located there.

Co-plaintiff Amazon Watch and EarthRights International, a nonprofit human and environmental rights group representing the Achuar villagers, vowed to continue to pursue all legal means of redress.

"The plaintiffs are fully prepared to litigate this case in Peru, and [the defendants] will be held liable for their decades of toxic contamination," Marco Simons, legal director of EarthRights International, said in a statement.

The plaintiffs sued Occidental Petroleum and indirect subsidiary Occidental Peruana in California state court, but the defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The complaint alleged that for 30 years Occidental dumped an average of 850,000 barrels of toxic wastewater each day into rivers and streams used by local residents for drinking, bathing and washing.

The company also contaminated the land with pollutants such as heavy metals, hydrocarbons and other products of the oil industry, the suit said. The Peruvian government has classified the area as one of the most environmentally damaged in the country, the lawsuit said.

Because of the contamination, the plaintiffs alleged, the Achuar people have suffered health problems, including cancer, kidney illness and skin conditions. Epidemiological studies allegedly have shown that 99 percent of the people living in the area have unsafe levels of cadmium, which is known to cause cancer, in their blood.

The complaint asserted negligence, strict liability, battery, medical monitoring, trespass, public and private nuisance, fraud and misrepresentation, wrongful death, and violations of California law. It sought certification of the class, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief.

The defendants moved for dismissal, claiming that Peru was a more appropriate forum.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that because many of them do not have the national-identity documents necessary to bring a lawsuit in Peru, they could not maintain a suit there. Additionally, they said, Peru has no form of action equivalent to the American class action.

However, Judge Gutierrez explained that Peru has authorized judges to admit complaints filed by plaintiffs with no national-identity document in certain circumstances. Also, Peru is not an inadequate forum merely because it lacks a class-action mechanism, he said.

Finally, the judge said, the cost and lack of convenience of travel between Peru and California supports dismissal of the case.

To comment, ask questions or contribute articles, contact West.Andrews.Editor@Thomson.com.

To comment, ask questions or contribute articles, contact West.Andrews.Editor@Thomson.com.