Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International

The North Dakota Supreme Court ordered a North Dakota district court to enjoin Greenpeace International (GPI) from pursuing an action in Dutch court to hold the developers and owner of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) liable under the European Union’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) directive. The developers—Energy Transfer LP; Energy Transfer Operating, L.P.; and Dakota Access LLC (together, Energy Transfer)—filed an emergency motion for an anti-suit injunction in the district court several months after a jury found that GPI and other Greenpeace defendants were liable for $667 million (later reduced to $345 million) in connection with actions related to DAPL protests. As a threshold matter, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded that the case warranted its supervisory review of the district court’s denial of the emergency motion because Energy Transfer’s petition involved “fundamental interests” and presented “issues of vital concern on a matter of important public interest.” On the merits, the Supreme Court found that the district court erred when it concluded that the issues involved in GPI’s Dutch action were not “substantially similar” to the issues in Energy Transfer’s North Dakota lawsuit. The Supreme Court found that even though North Dakota did not recognize SLAPPs or anti-SLAPP actions, GPI’s claims in the Dutch complaint would require the Dutch court to resolve factual and legal questions in GPI’s favor that the North Dakota jury resolved against GPI. The North Dakota Supreme Court further found that an injunction was required because the Dutch action was “vexatious” based on the timing of its filing two weeks before the North Dakota jury trial began and also because the Dutch action was an attack on North Dakota’s “fundamental policy” regarding “an orderly process for challenging an adverse verdict” and because the Dutch action created a risk of inconsistent verdicts. The court also found that concerns regarding threats to international comity were diminished because the North Dakota case was the first-filed action, because Dutch law provided GPI with an adequate remedy at the enforcement stage, and because comity need not be extended to a foreign action filed in disregard of comity. The Supreme Court ordered that a “narrowly tailored” antisuit injunction be entered that would enjoin GPI from pursuing any claim in the Dutch action “whose elements require, as pleaded, a finding that the North Dakota case lacked legal foundation.” The Supreme Court said the antisuit injunction should not enjoin claims premised on Energy Transfer’s dismissed federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act suit≤/a> and on alleged out-of-court defamatory statements. The Chief Justice dissented and would have concluded that the district court acted within its discretion. The Chief Justice also wrote that the district court would not have authority to issue the injunction unless it first determined that the facts presented at trial supported a finding of personal jurisdiction over GPI.

The North Dakota Supreme Court scheduled oral argument for December 18, 2025 on the Dakota Access Pipeline developers’ petition requesting that the court issue a supervisory writ and instruct the district court to block Greenpeace International (GPI) from proceeding with its lawsuit in the Netherlands seeking to hold the pipeline’s developer liable under the European Union’s Anti-SLAPP Directive and Dutch civil law.

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.

Filing Year For Action

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.

Filing Year For Action

A North Dakota District Court entered a final judgment ordering Greenpeace International (GPI), Greenpeace, Inc., and Greenpeace Fund, Inc. to pay more than $345 million in compensatory and exemplary damages to the developers and owner of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The Greenpeace organizations were found to be liable for defamation, trespass, nuisance, conspiracy, and tortious interference with business, and aiding and abetting in connection with protests of the pipeline. The court also directed that the developers and owner shall recover 11% interest starting from March 19, 2025 (the date of the jury verdict) until the judgment is paid. In a statement, the Greenpeace organizations announced they would seek a new trial and, if necessary, appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court. A petition for a supervisory writ is currently pending in the North Dakota Supreme Court in which the developers and owner ask the Supreme Court to direct the district court to block GPI from proceeding with an action against them in the Netherlands under the European Union’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) directive.

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 reported 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.