Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International

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.

–

–

Court granted amendment of the complaint to withdraw "all defamation allegations related to the Dakota Access Pipeline's poisoning of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's water supply and related to the Dakota Access Pipeline's catastrophic alteration of the climate, as agreed upon by both Energy Transfer and Greenpeace." The court also allowed amendment to clarify the claim for legal fees and to add a claim for exemplary damages, but denied amendment to assert an alter ego claim.

–

–

–

–

–

–

The parties agreed to the dismissal of an individual defendant (a Greenpeace organizer) and the withdrawal of allegations that Law 360 <a href="https://www.law360.com/articles/1475519/dapl-owner-narrows-allegations-in-greenpeace-suit">reported</a> were related to pipeline projects in Pennsylvania and Louisiana and to claims that Greenpeace made false statements about the Dakota Access Pipeline project.

–

–