Description: Lawsuit seeking to hold fossil fuel companies liable for the consequences of climate change in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.
-
Anne Arundel County v. BP p.l.c.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 02/26/2024 Opinion Download Remand orders affirmed. Fourth Circuit Affirmed Remand of Anne Arundel County and Annapolis Climate Cases Against Fossil Fuel Companies. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s decision remanding cases brought by Anne Arundel County and the City of Annapolis against fossil fuel companies to state court. The Fourth Circuit described the cases as two of the cases brought by state and local governments in recent years alleging that the defendants “misrepresented and concealed information about their fossil fuel products in violation of state tort and consumer protection laws.” The Fourth Circuit said the companies “have sought—over and over and over—to remove the cases to federal court” but that “that gambit has failed in at least ten cases already,” and “[t]he eleventh time is not the charm.” The Fourth Circuit noted that the district court in Anne Arundel County’s and Annapolis’s cases had rejected most grounds for removal as foreclosed by the Fourth Circuit’s 2022 decision in Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP p.l.c. and that the district court also rejected a variation of one of those foreclosed grounds (federal-officer removal) as well as a new argument for removal related to the companies’ First Amendment defenses to the plaintiffs’ claims. Regarding the variation of the defendants’ federal-officer removal argument, the Fourth Circuit concluded that it did not supply a basis for jurisdiction because the actions that the companies said they did under federal authority—including production of fuels in connection with military activity in the 1940s and 1950s and extraction of fuels and operation of energy infrastructure under federal regulations or commercial relationships with the federal government—were not the activities that were the subject of the plaintiffs’ allegations, which concerned concealment or misrepresentation of information about fossil fuel products. Regarding the defendants’ new argument that courts would necessarily have to consider First Amendment questions regarding protection of commercial speech to resolve the localities’ misrepresentation claims, the Fourth Circuit agreed with two other circuit courts of appeals that the First Amendment issues were not “necessary elements” of the local government’s claims and therefore did not supply a basis for federal jurisdiction. 12/04/2023 Letter Download Defendants filed letter responding to plaintiffs' supplemental authorities (Hawai'i Supreme Court decision in Honolulu case and Ninth Circuit decision in Oakland/San Francisco cases). 11/28/2023 Notice Download Letter filed by plaintiffs regarding supplemental authority (Ninth Circuit decision in Oakland/San Francisco cases). 11/28/2023 Notice Download Letter filed by plaintiffs regarding supplemental authority (Hawai'i Supreme Court decision in Honolulu case). 10/20/2023 Order Download Motion to submit on the briefs denied. 10/12/2023 Notification Download Oral argument scheduled. Oral Argument Scheduled in Remand Order Appeal in Annapolis/Anne Arundel County Case Against Fossil Fuel Companies. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals scheduled oral argument for December 6 in fossil fuel companies’ appeals of remand orders in cases brought by the City of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County. 10/02/2023 Response Download Defendants-appellants filed response to motion to submit on the papers. 09/29/2023 Letter Download Letter regarding supplemental authorities (Second Circuit decision in Connecticut case) submitted by plaintiffs. 09/20/2023 Motion Download Motion to submit on the papers filed by plaintiffs-appellees. 05/05/2023 Letter Download Letter filed by defendants-appellants responding to plaintiffs-appellees' April 28, 2023 notice of supplemental authority. 04/28/2023 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees regarding supplemental authority (Supreme Court's denials of certiorari petitions in Boulder and other cases). 04/12/2023 Letter Download Response filed by defendants-appellants to plaintiffs-appellees' supplemental authority (Eighth Circuit decision in Minnesota's case and U.S. Solicitor General brief regarding certiorari petition in Boulder et al. case). 04/03/2023 Letter Download Supplemental authority (U.S. Solicitor General's brief in Boulder County case) submitted by plaintiffs-appellees. 03/01/2023 Reply Download Reply brief filed by defendants-appellants. 02/08/2023 Brief Download Response brief filed by plaintiffs-appellees. 01/09/2023 Brief Download Opening brief filed by defendants-appellants. -
Anne Arundel County v. BP p.l.c.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 05/17/2023 Order Download Letter order issued directing the Clerk to remand the case to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. 04/12/2023 Letter Download Letter submitted by defendants in response to plaintiff's April 3 letter regarding new authorities. 04/03/2023 Letter Download Letter submitted by plaintiff regarding new authorities (U.S. Solicitor General brief to Supreme Court in Boulder County case and Eighth Circuit decision in Minnesota case). 10/27/2022 Memorandum Opinion Download Temporary stay of remand order continued until further notice. Remand Order Temporarily Stayed in Annapolis and Anne Arundel County Climate Cases. The federal district court for the District of Maryland temporarily stayed its order remanding to state court the climate change cases brought by the City of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County. Although the court found that the fossil fuel industry defendants “have not evidenced a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their appeal,” the court found that a temporary stay was warranted due to uncertainty regarding the timing of the Supreme Court’s consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Tenth Circuit’s affirmation of the remand order in Colorado local governments’ climate change case. The district court cited the potential for a state court to reach “dispositive and irreversible outcomes” before the Supreme Court rendered a decision in the Colorado local governments’ case, given that the Supreme Court had invited the Solicitor General to provide its views on the Tenth Circuit petition without setting a deadline for the Solicitor General to submit its briefing. The district court therefore stayed the remand orders until further notice. 10/24/2022 Reply Download Reply memorandum of law filed in support of defendants' motion to stay execution of remand order. 10/18/2022 Opposition Download Memorandum of law filed by Anne Arundel County in opposition to defendants' motion to stay execution of remand order. 10/11/2022 Motion Download Motion to stay execution of remand order filed by defendants. 10/11/2022 Notice of Appeal Download Notice of appeal of remand order filed. 09/29/2022 Memorandum Opinion Download Defendants' motion to stay proceedings denied and motion to remand granted. Federal Court Sent Annapolis and Anne Arundel County Climate Cases Back to State Court. The federal district court for the District of Maryland granted the City of Annapolis’s and Anne Arundel County’s motions to remand to state court their climate change cases against fossil fuel industry defendants. The court found that the Fourth Circuit’s 2022 opinion affirming the remand order in Baltimore’s climate case foreclosed all but two of the defendants’ arguments for federal jurisdiction in these two cases. Regarding the first remaining argument, the court found that the defendants’ “materially expanded evidentiary record” in support of federal-officer removal did not address the deficiency the Fourth Circuit identified in Baltimore’s case—that the record did not establish that the defendants’ alleged concealment of the climate harms of fossil fuels was related to the defendants’ purported federally authorized actions. In their second remaining argument, the defendants contended that the case satisfied the requirements for Grable jurisdiction because the case necessarily implicated First Amendment concerns by targeting speech on matters of “public concern.” The district court declined to extend the “slim category” of Grable jurisdiction cases to include state tort claims involving speech on matters of public concern, finding that “[s]uch an expansive holding would raise federalism concerns and counter the mandate for federal courts to ‘strictly construe’ removal statutes.” The district court also denied the defendants’ motions to stay the proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of the Baltimore case (where a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Fourth Circuit’s affirmance of the remand order was anticipated). The court stayed execution of the remand order for 30 days but said it was not amenable to a further stay on the present record. The parties were directed to establish a briefing schedule for any request for an additional stay pending appeal that would allow the court a week to rule on the request before the 30-day stay expired. 09/28/2022 Letter Download Defendants filed letter requesting that court defer execution of remand order. 09/28/2022 Statement Download Statement filed by plaintiff stating position that court should not stay execution of remand order. 09/06/2022 Reply Download Supplemental reply filed in support of motion to remand. 08/16/2022 Opposition Download Opposition to plaintiffs' motion to remand filed. 07/15/2022 Motion Download Memorandum of law filed in support of plaintiff's motion to remand to state court. 06/27/2022 Order Download Court reserved ruling on defendants' motion to stay proceedings. Parties to Proceed with Briefing of Remand Motions in Annapolis and Anne Arundel County Climate Cases. The federal district court for the District of Maryland said it would reserve ruling on fossil fuel companies’ motions to stay proceedings in climate change cases brought by the City of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County until briefing on the plaintiffs’ motions to remand was complete. The companies had asked the court to stay proceedings pending their petition for writ of certiorari in the Baltimore case and any subsequent merits review by the Supreme Court. The district court in the Anne Arundel County and Annapolis cases reopened the cases on April 27, 2022 after the Fourth Circuit affirmed the remand order in Baltimore’s case. In its letter order reserving its ruling on the motions to stay, the district court acknowledged the “potential expenditure of unnecessary time and resources associated with” briefing the remand motions, given uncertainty about the certiorari petitions, but expressed a desire “to be well positioned to advance the cases expeditiously if certiorari is denied.” 06/22/2022 Reply Download Reply memorandum of law filed in support of defendants' motion to stay proceedings. 06/08/2022 Opposition Download Opposition to defendants' motion to stay proceedings filed by plaintiff. 05/25/2022 Motion Download Motion to stay proceedings filed by defendants. 05/12/2022 Order Briefing schedule approved. 05/11/2022 Request Download Parties filed joint proposal and [proposed] order regarding briefing schedule on motion for stay and motion for remand. 04/27/2022 Order Download Case reopened and stay lifted after Fourth Circuit's decision in Baltimore case. 04/21/2022 Not Available Download Joint submission filed regarding Fourth Circuit decision in Baltimore. 06/28/2021 Motion Download Motion to remand to state court filed. Anne Arundel County, Maryland filed a motion in federal court in Maryland to remand its case to state court. The County acknowledged that proceedings had been stayed but said it was filing the motion “out of abundance of caution and to avoid inadvertent waiver.” The County said it would file a memorandum in support of the motion after the stay was lifted. The motion previewed the County’s arguments, including that the federal court lacked jurisdiction because the County asserted only state law claims, and that the case was not removable under the Outer Continental Lands Shelf Act or the federal-officer removal statute or based on federal enclave jurisdiction. 06/01/2021 Order Download Stipulation to stay of proceedings so-ordered. On June 1, 2021, the district court so-ordered the parties’ stipulation to a stay of the proceedings pending the Fourth Circuit’s decision on remand in the Baltimore case. 05/27/2021 Notice of Removal Download Notice of removal filed by defendants Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. -
Anne Arundel County v. BP p.l.c.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 04/26/2021 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Maryland County Filed Climate Change Lawsuit Against Fossil Fuel Companies and Trade Group. Anne Arundel County, Maryland filed a lawsuit in state court against fossil fuel companies and American Petroleum Institute seeking to hold them liable for the physical, environmental, social, and economic consequences of climate change in Anne Arundel County. (Annapolis, a city in the county, previously filed a separate lawsuit against fossil fuel companies.) In its lawsuit, the County asserted claims of public nuisance, private nuisance, strict liability for failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, trespass, and violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. The County alleged that the defendants, despite knowing for more than 50 years that greenhouse gas emissions from their fossil fuel products would have significant adverse impacts on climate and sea levels, concealed the risks of climate change and promoted false and misleading information, including campaigns targeted at County residents to create doubts regarding the impacts of fossil fuels. The County asserted that the defendants were “directly responsible for a substantial portion of the climate crisis-related impacts in Anne Arundel County,” including sea level rise, storm surge, and flooding, as well as more frequent, longer-lasting, and more severe extreme weather events. The County seeks compensatory and punitive damages, equitable relief, attorney fees and costs of suit, and disgorgement of profits, as well as recovery for injury or loss sustained as a result of practices barred by the Consumer Protection Act.