The Institute of Cetacean Research
- You are here:
- Home>
- English Sitemap>
- PUBLIC INFORMATION>
- Archives>
- Research Harassment & Sabotage>
- ICR vs SSCS
ICR vs SSCS - Permanent Injunction Lawsuit
On 8 December 2011 Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd. and the Institute of Cetacean Research along with research vessels' masters filed a lawsuit against the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (hereafter SSCS) and Paul Watson in the Federal District Court of Washington State in the United States. Around the same time, we also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to secure safety at sea until the decision on permanent injunction were to be made.
Purpose of this lawsuit
To prevent the activities of SSCS and Paul Watson in order to ensure safety of masters, crew members and researchers, and damages to vessels engaged in the whale research conducted in the Antarctic Ocean, in particular, calling for the obstructing vessels belonging to SSCS not to interfere with the research vessels, their crew and researchers, and to request that the obstructing vessels do not come closer than a certain, fixed distance from the research vessels.
Brief history
On 19 March 2012 the United States District Court decided not to award the preliminary injunction, so on April 10, 2012, we filed a Notice of Appeal seeking review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of the March 19 Order entered by the District of Washington Federal Court. On December 17, 2012, the U.S. Appeals Court issued an Order granting a preliminary injunction. The Order enjoined Sea Shepherd, Paul Watson and anyone "acting in concert with them" from physically attacking the Japanese research vessels or any person on them and from navigating in a manner that is likely to endanger safe navigation at sea. The Order also prohibited Sea Shepherd and Paul Watson from approaching ICR or Kyodo Senpaku "any closer than 500 yards" when the research vessels are navigating on the open sea. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later also reversed the Washington District Court's original ruling on all counts, ordered an appointment of another judge by the District Court and ordered a permanent injunction case to be remanded to the Federal District Court.
However, as the SSCS continued the interference despite the court order, on February 11, 2013 we filed a motion for contempt against SSCS for violating the above injunction order. On December 19, 2014, the court found Paul Watson, SSCS, and six SSCS directors in civil contempt, and awarded the plaintiff's their attorney's fees, costs, and compensatory damages. After that, the permanent injunction procedure at the Federal District Court began, including discovery. In early August 2016, arbitration was held in Seattle which led to a mediation agreement to resolve this dispute with SSCS and Paul Watson. Based on this agreement, we filed a stipulated motion for entry of a permanent injunction to the Federal District Court on August 22, 2016 to resolve the safety at sea case.
On August 24, 2016, the Federal District Court granted the stipulated permanent injunction order, and on September 1, 2016 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered to dissolve the preliminary injunction.
As a result, the lawsuits in the United States that began in 2011 have formally concluded, including counterclaims.
Main sequence of events
Washington Federal District Court matters: Red text
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals matters: Blue text
United States Supreme Court matters: Green text
Local date time
2011.12.08 The Institute of Cetacean Research, Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha along with the masters filed a safety at sea (permanent injunction) lawsuit against SSCS and Paul Watson in the Federal District Court of Washington.
2011.12.14 A motion for preliminary injunction was filed to the Federal District Court in Washington.
2012.03.19 The Washington Federal District Court rejects this motion.
2012.04.10 A Notice of Appeal seeking review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of the March 19 Order entered by the District of Washington Federal Court is filed.
2012.12.17 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals grants the Plaintiffs the preliminary injunction. (The Order effective until the Appeals Court issues an order).
2013.02.01 The Federal District Court in Washington orders that, except for the preliminary injunction order of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, all other related federal court proceedings will freeze until the conclusion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
2013.02.11 Field a motion for contempt against SSCS and Paul Watson to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for violating the Preliminary Injunction Order.
2013.02.21 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals appoints an Appellate Commissioner and orders him to investigate the contempt charges.
2013.02.25 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issues a court opinion, awards the preliminary injunction, and reverses the District Court’s original ruling on all accounts. The permanent injunction case is remanded to the District Court, and the District Court is ordered to appoint another judge for an equitable trial. In addition, this preliminary injunction is to be valid until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issues a new order.
2013.05.24 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issues an order and amended opinion and dismisses the request of SSCS which was seeking to hold hearings again.
2013.06.10 Honorable James L. Robart is appointed as a new judge in the United States District Court for Washington State for this case.
2013.10.28-11.06 Contempt hearing by the Appellate Commissioner is held.
2014.01.31 Based on the above proceedings, the Appellate Commissioner submits a report and recommendation to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals purporting that SSCS actions do not fall under contempt.
2014.03.07 Objection and request for oral argument against the above recommendation is filed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
2014.04.28 Honorable Robart decides to resume the case after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals contempt of court proceedings conclude.
2014.10.27 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals holds Oral Argument.
2014.12.19 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issues a court opinion, finds Paul Watson, SSCS, and six directors in civil contempt, and awards the plaintiffs their attorney fees, costs, and compensatory damages caused by the defendants' interference.
2015.04.03 Honorable Robart schedules the permanent injunction lawsuit trial date on October 11, 2016.
2015.04.28 Paul Watson, SSCS, and directors filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision holding SSCS, Paul Watson, and six directors in contempt.
2015.06.08 The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari, and therefore the contempt ruling is confirmed.
2015.06.08 The plaintiffs and the defendants establish a settlement regarding the December 19 order of compensation. The SSCS side pays to plaintiffs a compensation of 2,550,000 US dollars by July 1, 2015.
2016.04.22 Hearings are held on the discovery procedures and schedules at the Federal District Court of Washington.
2016.08 An arbitration is held through a mediator in Seattle.
2016.08.22 A stipulated motion, based on a mediation agreement with SSCS and Paul Watson, for the entry of a permanent injunction to the Federal District Court of Washington is filed to resolve this dispute with SSCS and Paul Watson.
2016.08.24 The Federal District Court of Washington grants the stipulated permanent injunction.
2016.08.25 Plaintiffs filed a motion to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to dissolve the preliminary injunction.
2016.09.01 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals orders to dissolve the preliminary injunction entered on December 17, 2012.
Related documents
・United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - Order of December 17, 2012
・United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - Opinion of February 25, 2013
・United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - Order and Amended Opinion of May 24, 2013