# Exxon Corporation v. Chick Kam Choo

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 21, 1987 · 817 F.2d 307

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9476123

## Case

- **Full name:** EXXON CORPORATION, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CHICK KAM CHOO, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 21, 1987
- **Citations:** 817 F.2d 307; 1988 A.M.C. 923; 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 13387
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Clark
- **Judges:** Clark, Gee, Reavley
- **Cited by:** 49 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Reversed on other grounds by Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 486 U.S. 140 (1988).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9476123

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that “admiralty jurisdiction over claims by Singapore plaintiffs on an alleged tort in Singapore” is “undoubted”

## Opinion text

CLARK, Chief Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result reached by Judge Gee because it upholds the district court’s order, the pertinent part of which is set out in the margin. 1 The federal court heard the parties, considered the matters before it and reached a decision that the contested issues should not be litigated in Houston in the interest of justice. That decision was not appealed and became final and binding as between the parties. All proceedings in that case were closed. The district court did no more than order parties that had been subject to its jurisdiction to give effect to the adjudication of an issue raised by and finally decided as between them. The jurisdiction that court undeniably had at the time the adjudication was made confers the inherent power to effectuate that final decision. I recognize that injunctions addressed to parties can impact on courts in which they litigate and that federal law limits such intrusions. 28 U.S.C. § 2283 . However, the exercise of the power to effectuate a judgment is an express exception to the limiting force of § 2283. More importantly, this case presents no reason to draw courts or court systems into what is essentially no more than an attempt by a dissatisfied litigant to thwart a binding order she does not like.
Today’s dispute does not implicate Texas courts or Texas law. It could be resolved entirely within the perimeters of the federal forum. Since Choo has acted to violate a final, binding order of the federal court, entered at a time when both parties were subject to its jurisdiction, that court can order them to end the violation. The fact that Texas courts might not use the same principles of adjudication furnishes only the condition that permits the violation to occur. Texas may permit, but it surely does not require, that Choo use its courts. No vested right to try this case in a Texas court in Houston is impaired by the federal forum’s protection of its judgment. There is no need to raise or resolve questions of sovereignty, preemption, comity or res judicata.
Assuming arguendo that the power of this court to protect or effectuate its final judgment somehow does not extend to proscribing subsequent, negating acts of parties over whom it had jurisdiction, I agree with Judge Gee that the maritime nature of the order entered in the present controversy would preempt the inconsistent exercise of state court jurisdiction.
. "ORDERED that Chick Kam Choo and her attorneys, Benton Musslewhite and Joseph C. Blanks, be and are hereby permanently enjoined from prosecuting or commencing any causes of action or claims against Exxon Corporation and/or Esso Tankers, Inc., in the courts of the State of Texas or any other state, and in particular Cause No. 84-00125 pending in the 270th District Court of Harris County, Texas, arising out of or related to the alleged wrongful death of Leong Chong, which occurred onboard the Tanker ESSO WILHELMSHAVEN on or about March 24, 1977, in Singapore. This Injunctive Order is binding upon and applies with equal force to the Defendants, their agents, servants and upon those persons in active consent or participation with them.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9476123. Public record. Not legal advice.