Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International

The North Dakota Supreme Court denied the Greenpeace defendants’ petition for a supervisory writ directing the district court to change the venue of the trial from Morton County—where the Greenpeace defendants said residents’ everyday lives were “significantly disrupted” by the protests at Standing Rock—to another county. The Greenpeace defendants argued that jury questionnaires, voir dire, and a 2022 survey of potential jurors, as well as “pretrial publicity [that] fanned the flames of potential jurors’ fear and anger,” showed that the empaneled jurors were not actually impartial and that Morton County was a “fundamentally unfair venue.” The Greenpeace defendants contended that the venue was “potentially ruinous” because in the event “this biased panel” found them liable for the $900 million sought by the developers, the supersedeas bond needed to secure a stay of a judgment “would effectively destroy” the defendants.

Energy Transfer petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court to issue a writ to protect the company from "unnecessary and harassing discovery." Energy Transfer said the discovery sought by Greenpeace and allowed by the district court included a deposition of Energy Transfer's former CEO Kelcy Warren and "a massive and ill-defined set of pipeline-safety documents." Energy Transfer described Warren as "a classic apex witness" without "any unique and otherwise unobtainable knowledge, a basic requirement for an apex deposition." Regarding pipeline-safety documents, Energy Transfer said it had withdrawn "all defamation claims predicated on Greenpeace's water- and climate-related statements," making the documents "patently irrelevant to any pending claim."

On March 18, 2019, the Greenpeace defendants removed the lawsuit to federal court on the grounds that the requirements of diversity jurisdiction were met.

A North Dakota trial court granted in part and denied in part Greenpeace entities’ motions for judgment as a matter of law and to reduce damages awarded to the developers and owner of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The court’s decision on the motions reduced the damages of almost $667 million awarded by the jury to $345,358,436. The court disallowed the jury’s verdict as to the pipeline developers’ claims of trespass to land and aiding and abetting trespass to land, finding that there was no evidence that the developers possessed any interest in real estate. In addition, the court disallowed claims against both the developers and owner for conversion and aiding and abetting conversion, finding that there was no evidence showing that equipment was disabled for a significant period of time. The court also disallowed claims of defamation per se as duplicative of the defamation claim. The court denied the Greenpeace entities’ motion for judgment as a matter of law on the pipeline owner’s claims of trespass to land and aiding and abetting trespass to land, as well as all claims by all plaintiffs of trespass to chattel and aiding and abetting trespass to chattel, nuisance and aiding and abetting nuisance, conspiracy, defamation, and tortious interference with business claims. The court reduced damages for the conspiracy claims; limited exemplary damages for the developers on the trespass to chattels, aiding and abetting trespass to chattels, nuisance, and aiding and abetting nuisance claims; and disallowed all exemplary damages for the defamation claims. North Dakota Monitor <a href="https://northdakotamonitor.com/2025/10/29/judge-slashes-jury-damages-in-greenpeace-case-to-345-million/">reported</a> that plaintiffs plan to appeal the reductions in the defamation and conspiracy damages and that the defendants intended to ask for a new trial after entry of final judgment and to appeal if that request is unsuccessful.

The North Dakota District Court denied the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) developers’ request for an anti-suit injunction prohibiting Greenpeace International (GPI) from proceeding with an action against the developers in the Netherlands under the European Union’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) directive. A District Court jury found in March 2025 that GPI and other Greenpeace defendants were liable for almost $667 million in compensatory and exemplary damages to the developers for actions related to DAPL protests. In its order denying the anti-suit injunction, the court found that the threshold considerations for an injunction were not satisfied. Although the parties in the North Dakota and Dutch case were the same, the court found that the issues were different since the Dutch case involved defamation allegations by GPI against the developers and since North Dakota does not recognize a SLAPP or anti-SLAPP action. The court also found that the Dutch action’s frustration of a policy in the North Dakota court was “not a certainty” and declined to find that the Dutch action was vexatious or that it threatened North Dakota courts’ in rem jurisdiction or prejudiced equitable considerations in the developers’ North Dakota lawsuit. The court also concluded that the issue of comity did not apply because GPI’s SLAPP and defamation claims were not pending before the North Dakota court.

Energy Transfer LP, Energy Transfer Operating, L.P., and Dakota Access LLC (together, Energy Transfer) filed an emergency motion for anti-suit injunction in North Dakota District Court asking the court to enjoin Greenpeace International (GPI) from proceeding with a lawsuit in the Netherlands in which GPI seeks an order declaring Energy Transfer’s North Dakota suit against GPI meritless and requiring Energy Transfer to pay damages. In March 2025, a jury in the North Dakota suit found GPI and other Greenpeace entities liable to Energy Transfer for $667 million in connection with protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. In the emergency motion, Energy Transfer argued that the threshold requirements for an anti-suit injunction were met because the parties and issues were functionally identical. Energy Transfer further argued that discretionary factors weighed in favor of an injunction. Energy Transfer contended that the Dutch action frustrated State of North Dakota policy interests, that the Dutch action was “vexatious,” and that it would result in unnecessary expense and duplicative efforts and was filed for the express purpose of gaining an inconsistent ruling and an improper “race to judgment.” Energy Transfer also contended that an injunction would not have an adverse impact on international comity. The North Dakota Monitor <a href="https://northdakotamonitor.com/2025/08/06/greenpeace-says-north-dakota-judge-shouldnt-meddle-with-international-free-speech-case/">reported</a> that the North Dakota court would hear arguments on the motion on August 20.

Two post-trial hearings were held in May 2025 in Energy Transfer LP and Energy Transfer Operating, L.P.’s (Energy Transfer’s) lawsuit seeking damages from Greenpeace defendants (Greenpeace) for actions related to Dakota Access Pipeline protests. In March 2025, a state court jury found that the Greenpeace defendants were liable for $667 million in compensatory and exemplary damages. At a May 15 hearing, Greenpeace <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/greenpeace-challenges-damages/">said</a> it had argued that the damages awarded were in excess of what the law would allow and that they bore no reasonable relationship to Energy Transfer’s alleged damages. At a May 27 hearing, Greenpeace <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/energy-transfer-lawsuit-still-no-evidence-still-no-final-judgment/">said</a> the court heard Greenpeace’s arguments that the evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. The court withheld any rulings on Greenpeace’s motions.