Description: Action by California counties and cities seeking damages and other relief from fossil fuel companies for sea level rise.
-
Chevron Corp. v. County of San Mateo
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 04/24/2023 Order List Download Petition for writ of certiorari denied. Supreme Court Denied Fossil Fuel Companies’ Requests for Certiorari on Jurisdictional Issues in State and Local Government Climate Cases. On April 24, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court denied fossil fuel industry defendants’ petitions for writ of certiorari seeking review of decisions affirming remand orders that sent climate change cases brought by state and local governments back to state courts. The fossil fuel companies had asked the Court to consider whether there was federal jurisdiction over state-law claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate or transboundary greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate because federal common law necessarily governs such claims. Justice Alito did not participate in the consideration of or decision on the petitions. 02/14/2023 Reply Download Reply brief filed by petitioners. Briefing was completed on February 14, 2023 for fossil fuel companies’ petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s affirmance of remand orders in cases brought by the County of San Mateo and other California local governments. The case originally was distributed for the justices’ conference on March 3 but was rescheduled on February 27; a new date was not noted on the docket. 01/27/2023 Brief Download Brief filed for respondents County of San Mateo et al. 12/27/2022 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amicus curiae National Association of Manufacturers in support of petitioners. 11/30/2022 Petition for Writ of Certiorari Download Petition for writ of certiorari filed. Certiorari Petition Filed Requesting Review of Jurisdictional Issues. Fossil fuel companies filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking the Supreme Court’s review of the Ninth Circuit's decision affirming the remand of the California local governments' cases to state court. The fossil fuel companies presented the following question: “Whether a federal district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over nominally state-law claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effect of transboundary greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate, on the ground that federal law necessarily and exclusively governs such claims.” -
County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 08/31/2022 Letter Download Supreme Court, Office of the Clerk, submitted letter notifying Ninth Circuit that time for filing certiorari petition had been extended to November 24. 06/30/2022 Order Download Motion to stay the mandate granted. On June 30, 2022, the court granted the companies motion to stay issuance of the mandate pending the filing and disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. 06/29/2022 Motion Download Motion to stay the mandate filed. In a motion to stay the mandate, fossil fuel companies argued that the Ninth Circuit’s decision affirming the remand order had “deepened an entrenched circuit split and is in significant tension with longstanding Supreme Court precedent” related to “whether nominally state-law claims that, because of our constitutional structure, are necessarily and exclusively governed by federal law alone, are removable to federal court.” The companies further argued that the potential harm posed by remand of the six cases to four different state courts justified stay of the mandate. 06/27/2022 Order Download Petition for rehearing denied. Ninth Circuit Denied Rehearing on Remand of California Local Government Climate Cases. On June 27, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied fossil fuel companies’ petition for rehearing en banc of the court’s decision affirming the remand to state court of climate change cases brought by six local governments in California. The panel voted unanimously to deny the petition, and no Ninth Circuit judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. 05/27/2022 Amicus Brief Download Amicus curiae brief filed by National Association of Manufacturers in support of appellants' petition for rehearing en banc. 05/27/2022 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amicus curiae the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America in support of petition for rehearing en banc. 05/24/2022 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by Indiana and 14 other states in support of appellants' petition for rehearing. 05/17/2022 Petition for Rehearing Download Petition for rehearing en banc filed by appellants. Energy companies filed a petition for rehearing en banc of the Ninth Circuit’s decision remanding cases brought by County of San Mateo and other California local governments. The companies argued that the panel’s decision conflicted with the Second Circuit’s decision in New York City’s case against energy companies and was “irreconcilable” with Supreme Court precedent recognizing that only federal law may govern controversies concerning interstate pollution. They also contended that the panel’s application of the well-pleaded complaint rule was at odds with decisions of other courts of appeals. 04/19/2022 Opinion Download Remand order affirmed. Ninth Circuit Said California Localities’ Climate Cases Should Return to State Court. The Ninth Circuit also affirmed, for a second time, a district order remanding to state court climate lawsuits brought by California local governments against fossil fuel companies. The Ninth Circuit previously affirmed the remand order in 2020 but only reviewed the propriety of removal under the federal-officer removal statute. After the Supreme Court ruled in the Baltimore case that the scope of appellate review included all grounds for removal when one of the grounds is federal-officer removal, the Ninth Circuit in this second decision reviewed the fossil fuel companies’ other bases for removal and rejected their “broad interpretations of removal jurisdiction,” even in a case where the plaintiffs “raise novel and sweeping causes of action.” First, the Ninth Circuit applied the same analysis that it used in City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c. and found that the companies did not establish prerequisites for the Grable exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule for cases that raise a substantial federal issue. Second, the Ninth Circuit held, as it had in City of Oakland, that the Clean Air Act did not completely preempt the plaintiffs’ state-law claims. Third, the Ninth Circuit concluded the connection between the defendants’ conduct on federal enclaves (such as a naval petroleum reserve and naval installations) and the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries was “too attenuated and remote” to be governed by federal law applicable to federal enclaves. Fourth, the Ninth Circuit rejected the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) as a basis for jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit noted that other circuit courts, including the Fourth Circuit (see the Baltimore opinion above), required “only a ‘but-for’ connection between operations on the outer Continental Shelf and a plaintiff’s alleged injuries,” but the Ninth Circuit concluded that jurisdiction under OCSLA was governed by a limiting principle consistent with federal enclave jurisdiction and required that claims “arise from actions or injuries occurring on the outer Continental Shelf.” The Ninth Circuit found that the connections between the defendant companies’ operations on the outer Continental Shelf and the plaintiffs’ claims was “too attenuated” to provide a basis for jurisdiction. Fifth, the Ninth Circuit found that the companies did not establish that they were “acting under” a federal officer in connection with three agreements with the federal government and therefore did not satisfy requirements for removal under the federal-officer removal statute. Sixth, the Ninth Circuit found that bankruptcy jurisdiction did not apply because there was not a “close nexus” between the plaintiffs’ complaints and the coal company Peabody Energy’s bankruptcy or Texaco, Inc.’s bankruptcy. Seventh, the Ninth Circuit held that admiralty jurisdiction did not provide a basis for removal because pursuant to the “saving to suitors” clause of the admiralty jurisdiction statute, maritime claims brought in state court require an independent basis for federal jurisdiction. 04/12/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees submitting supplemental authority (Fourth Circuit opinion in Mayor & City Council of Baltimore case). 02/28/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by defendants-appellants in response to plaintiffs-appellees' supplemental authority (Tenth Circuit opinion in Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County case) 02/16/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees submitting supplemental authority (Tenth Circuit opinion in Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County case). 01/20/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by defendants-appellants in response to plaintiffs-appellees' citation of supplemental authority (remand order in Delaware case). 01/13/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees to provide notice of supplemental authority (remand order in Delaware case). 09/29/2021 Response Download Response to plaintiffs-appellees' notice of supplemental authority filed. 09/20/2021 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority filed by plaintiffs-appellees regarding remand order in City of Hoboken v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 07/16/2021 Letter Download Letter submitted by plaintiffs regarding citation of supplemental authorities since the court's May 2020 opinion. 07/01/2021 Order Download Appellants' consent motion for supplemental briefing and oral argument denied. 06/29/2021 Notice Download Notice of non-opposition filed by plaintiffs-appellees to defendants-appellants' consent motion for leave to file supplemental briefing. 06/23/2021 Motion Download Consent motion filed by appellants for supplemental briefing and oral argument. 05/24/2021 Letter Download Letter sent to Ninth Circuit clerk by Supreme Court clerk. 09/28/2020 Order Download Stay of mandate extended. Ninth Circuit Extended Stay of Mandate. The Ninth Circuit extended its stay of the mandate in County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp. for 90 days. The Ninth Circuit granted the extension of the stay of mandate after the Supreme Court allowed the fossil fuel company defendants an additional 60 days to file a petition for writ of certiorari. The petition must be filed by January 4, 2021. 09/23/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron requesting extension of stay of mandate. 08/25/2020 Order Download Motion to stay the mandate denied. Ninth Circuit Order Stayed Mandate After Affirming Remand of California Local Governments’ Climate Cases to State Court. In cases brought by San Mateo County and other California localities seeking climate change-related damages from fossil fuel companies, the Ninth Circuit granted the companies’ motion to stay the mandate after the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court order remanding the cases to state court. The Ninth Circuit stayed the mandate pending the Supreme Court’s action on the certiorari petition and, if the Supreme Court grants the petition, pending disposition of the case. 08/20/2020 Opposition Download Opposition filed to motion to stay mandate. 08/10/2020 Motion Download Motion to stay the mandate filed. After the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing, the energy companies argued that a stay was warranted because their petition for writ of certiorari would raise the substantial question of whether a court of appeals may review any issue in a district court order granting remand where removal was based in part on the federal-officer removal statute or whether, as the Ninth Circuit ruled, the appellate court’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the district court’s decision on the federal-officer removal issue. The companies also argued there was good cause for a stay because remand would result in six cases being returned to four different state courts for proceedings, potentially forcing the defendants “to incur substantial burden and expense.” 08/04/2020 Order Download Petition for rehearing en banc denied. Ninth Circuit Denied Rehearing of Decision Affirming Remand Order. The Ninth Circuit denied the defendants-appellants’ petition for rehearing en banc of the decision affirming the district court’s remand order. 07/20/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amicus curiae U.S. Chamber of Commerce in support of appellants' petition for rehearing en banc. 07/09/2020 Petition for Rehearing Download Petition for rehearing en banc filed by appellants. 06/08/2020 Order Download Motion for extension of time to file a petition for rehearing granted. On June 8, 2020, the Ninth Circuit granted the companies’ motion for an extension of time to file a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc in both this case, as well as in City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c., in which the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's determination that there was federal-question jurisdiction. Any petition for rehearing must be filed by July 9. 06/02/2020 Motion Download Motion filed by defendants for extension of time to file petition for panel rehearing and/or rehearing en banc. 05/26/2020 Opinion Download District court determination that there was no federal-officer statute removal jurisdiction affirmed and remainder of appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Ninth Circuit Ruled for California Cities and Counties on Questions of Whether Climate Lawsuits Against Energy Companies Belonged in State or Federal Court. In the energy companies’ appeal of a district court’s remand order in cases brought by the County of San Mateo and other counties and cities, the Ninth Circuit concluded first that its jurisdiction to review was limited to whether the cases were properly removed under the federal-officer removal statute and then that the companies had not proved that federal-officer removal could be invoked. The Ninth Circuit rejected the energy companies’ arguments in favor of plenary review of the remand order. First, the Ninth Circuit was not persuaded by the companies’ contention that the district court had remanded based on a merits determination, not based on subject matter jurisdiction. Second, the Ninth Circuit found that under its existing precedent, it had jurisdiction to review the issue of federal-officer removal but not the portions of the remand order that considered seven other bases for removal. The Ninth Circuit concluded that Congress’s enactment of the Removal Clarification Act of 2011 did not abrogate this precedent. The Ninth Circuit also rejected the companies’ argument that it was not bound by its own precedent because the decision was not well reasoned; the court said it remained bound by the precedent “until abrogated by an intervening higher authority.” The Ninth Circuit then conducted a de novo review of the issue of subject matter jurisdiction under the federal-officer removal statute. The appellate court found that the energy companies had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that they were “acting under” a federal officer in any of the three agreements with the government on which the companies relied for federal-officer removal jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit therefore affirmed the district court’s determination that there was no federal-officer removal jurisdiction and dismissed the remainder of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 05/14/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron Corporation regarding supplemental authority (Eighth Circuit affirmation of bankruptcy discharge of claims against Peabody Energy Corporation). 05/12/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron Corporation in response to plaintiffs' April 27, 2020 letter concerning supplemental authority. 04/27/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs regarding supplemental authority. 04/06/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron Corporation to inform court of the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari in the Baltimore case. 03/24/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron Corporation in response to plaintiffs-appellees' March 18, 2020 letter regarding supplemental authority. 03/18/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees regarding supplemental authority. 03/09/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees regarding the Fourth Circuit's decision in Baltimore's case. The plaintiffs-appellees notified the Ninth Circuit of the Fourth Circuit’s decision affirming the remand order in Baltimore's case. They told the Ninth Circuit that the Fourth Circuit had rejected the defendants-appellants’ arguments regarding both the scope of appellate jurisdiction and the application of federal-officer removal. 03/09/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron Corporation in response to plaintiffs-appellees' March 9, 2020 letter regarding the Fourth Circuit's decision in the Baltimore case. In response to the plaintiffs-appellees' letter regarding the Fourth Circuit's decision in the Baltimore case, defendant Chevron Corporation distinguished the Fourth Circuit’s opinion, arguing that the Fourth Circuit viewed itself as bound by precedent regarding the scope of its appellate jurisdiction, which Chevron contended was not the situation in the Ninth Circuit. Chevron also asserted that the Fourth Circuit based its determination that federal-officer removal was inapplicable on an incorrect conclusion regarding the focus of Baltimore’s claims. 03/05/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees in response to Chevron Corporation's letter of February 27, 2020. 02/27/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron Corporation concerning supplemental authority on federal-officer removal. 02/05/2020 Not Available Oral argument held. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on February 5, 2020. Judges Ikuta, Christen, and Lee comprise the panel considering the appeals. 01/31/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees in response to Chevron Corporation's January 29, 2020 letter concerning Juliana. 01/29/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron Corporation regarding supplemental authority. Chevron Corporation submitted a letter asserting that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Juliana v. United States supported the companies’ argument that the climate change claims asserted by local and state governments against the companies “have their source in federal law and therefore belong in federal court.” 01/21/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron Corporation in response to plaintiffs-appellees' January 6, 2020 supplemental authority. 01/15/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees regarding supplemental authority. 01/06/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees regarding supplemental authority. 12/30/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees in response to Chevron's December 19, 2019 letter. 12/19/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron Corporation regarding supplemental authority. 11/24/2019 Notice Download Oral argument scheduled for February 5, 2020. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals scheduled oral argument for the morning of Wednesday, February 5, 2020 for the fossil fuel companies’ appeals of remand orders sending six cases brought by California counties and cities back to state court. 10/02/2019 Notice Download Court issued notice requesting that parties advise the court of unavoidable conflicts for oral argument dates in February 2020 and two subsequent sitting months. 09/10/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees to advise the court of the remand order in Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. 09/03/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by appellees to notify the court of supplemental authority. 08/20/2019 Notice Notice filed seeking responses to case being considered for oral argument. The Ninth Circuit notified the parties that it was considering the case for oral argument in Pasadena and asked the parties to inform the court of unavoidable conflicts in December 2019 and the two subsequent sitting months. 08/15/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron Corporation in response to plaintiffs-appellees' July 17, 2019 letter. 07/31/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by defendants in response to plaintiffs-appellees' July 17, 2019 letter. 07/26/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by appellees to notify the court of remand order in State of Rhode Island v. Chevron Corp. 07/17/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees to notify the court of a recent Third Circuit decision. 07/17/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appeals to notify the court of a recent Ninth Circuit decision. 07/17/2019 Order Download Motion to assign appeals to a single panel granted. City of Oakland and County of San Mateo Appeals to Be Heard by Same Panel. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a motion by oil and gas companies to assign Oakland and San Francisco’s appeal of the district court decisions denying remand and dismissing their climate change nuisance actions to the same panel that will hear the companies’ appeals of the order remanding the County of San Mateo’s and three other climate lawsuits to California state court. The court subsequently notified the parties that it was considering the cases for an upcoming oral argument and asked for information on counsel’s availability in November, December, and January. 07/13/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by defendant-appellant Chevron Corporation in response to plaintiffs-appellees' June 21, 2019 letter. 07/11/2019 Opposition Download Opposition to plaintiffs-appellees to motion to assign appeals to a single panel. 07/01/2019 Motion Download Motion to assign appeals to a single panel filed by defendants. 06/27/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by defendant-appellant Chevron Corporation in response to plaintiffs-appellees' June 17, 2019 letter. 06/21/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees to provide notice of recent Supreme Court decision. 06/20/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees in response to Chevron Corporation's June 18, 2019 letter. 06/18/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron Corporation to provide notice of recent Supreme Court decision. 06/17/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees to notify the court of remand order in Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP p.l.c. 05/23/2019 Letter Download Response filed by defendants-appellants to respond to plaintiffs-appellees' notices of supplemental authority. The fossil fuel companies responded to the plaintiffs-appellants' notices of supplemental authority, asserting that the neither of the unpublished per curiam decisions “bears meaningfully on the scope of this Court’s jurisdiction to review the district court’s remand order under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).” The companies said the pro se appellants in the two cases had not presented, and the courts had not analyzed, the jurisdictional issues briefed in this case. 05/06/2019 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority submitted by appellees. California Localities Cited Additional Authorities for Limited Review by Ninth Circuit of Remand Order in Climate Cases. In fossil fuel companies’ appeal of a remand order in the climate change cases brought by the County of San Mateo and other California local governments, the local governments filed two letters notifying the Ninth Circuit of recent decisions concerning the scope of appellate jurisdiction to review remand orders. The letters cited decisions by the Fifth Circuit and Eleventh Circuit that limited appellate review to the grounds for removal for which the applicable statute provides for appellate review. 05/03/2019 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority submitted by appellees. 03/14/2019 Reply Download Reply brief filed by appellants. 02/05/2019 Order Download Appellants' request to extend time to file reply brief approved. The Ninth Circuit approved the appellants' request to extend their time to file a reply brief. The reply brief must be filed by March 14, 2019. 01/29/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by Robert Brule, Center for Climate Integrity, Justin Farrell, Benjamin Franta, Stephan Lewandowsky, Naomi Oreskes, and Geoffrey Supran in support of appellees and affirmance. The Center for Climate Integrity and a group of scholars and scientists “with particular interest in public information and communication about climate change and how the public and public leaders learn about and understand climate change” submitted a brief asserting that the fossil fuel companies had actual knowledge of the risks of their products and had taken “proactive steps to conceal their knowledge and discredit climate science” while at the same time taking steps to protect their own assets from the impacts of climate change. 01/29/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by California State Association of Counties in support of affirmance. 01/29/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by Mario J. Molina, Michael Oppenheimer, Susanne C. Moser, Donald J. Wuebbles, Gary Griggs, Peter C. Frumhoff, and Kristina Dahl in support of appellees and affirmance. A group of scientists and scholars—who described themselves as having devoted much of their professional lives “to study, writing, and teaching one or more aspects of climate science, including sea level rise and its impacts on coastal communities”—submitted a brief that they intended to assist the court in understanding “the relevant science and the unavoidable adaptation expenses” faced by the plaintiffs. 01/29/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the International Municipal Lawyers Association in support of plaintiffs-appellees and affirmance. 01/29/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by Natural Resources Defense Council in support of appellees and affirmance. Natural Resources Defense Council filed a brief arguing that neither federal common law nor the Clean Air Act preempted all state law claims, and that there was no “unique federal interest in climate change” that would preempt all state law claims. 01/29/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by Public Citizen, Inc. in support of appellees and affirmance. The consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen submitted an amicus brief arguing that the federal officer removal statute did not provide a basis for removal. 01/29/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by states of California, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington in support of plaintiff-appellees. The California State Association of Counties, three local government associations, and eight states submitted amicus briefs focused on arguments favoring preservation of state law claims to address climate change impacts and limitations on removal jurisdiction. 01/29/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse in support of appellees and affirmance. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island submitted a brief “to provide context for arguments made by amicus curiae United States Chamber of Commerce” in support of reversal of the remand order. Whitehouse said the Chamber’s actions reflected “a decades-long campaign of disinformation, obstruction, and political intimidation designed to prevent democratically accountable branches of government from adopting any policies that would reduce carbon pollution”—and that the Ninth Circuit “should assess the Chamber’s arguments accordingly.” 01/22/2019 Brief Download Brief filed by plaintiffs-appellees. California Counties and Municipalities Argued for Affirmance of Order Remanding Climate Change Cases to State Court. On January 22, 2019, six California municipalities and counties (the plaintiffs) filed a brief urging the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reject fossil fuel companies’ appeal of a district court order remanding the plaintiffs’ climate change cases to state court. The plaintiffs argued that the Ninth Circuit only had jurisdiction to consider the fossil fuel companies’ appeal of the district court’s determination that there was no basis for removal under the federal officer removal statute. The plaintiffs contended that the district court’s determinations on the companies’ other grounds for removal were not reviewable. The plaintiffs further argued that even if the Ninth Circuit concluded it had jurisdiction to consider the companies’ other grounds for removal, it should reject those grounds. First, the plaintiffs asserted that their claims were pleaded under state law and did not “arise under” federal common law. They argued that the companies’ argument that the claims actually were governed by federal common law was a preemption defense that was insufficient as a basis for removal. The plaintiffs also noted that the district court had recognized that any federal common law that might have governed their claims was displaced by the Clean Air Act, and that federal common law therefore could not supersede their state law claims. The plaintiffs also urged the Ninth Circuit to reject the companies’ other grounds for removal as meritless. They argued that the Clean Air Act did not completely preempt their claims, and that their claims did not necessarily raise disputed and substantial federal issues. In addition, the plaintiffs said neither the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the federal enclave doctrine, nor the bankruptcy removal statute provided a basis for removal. Finally, the plaintiffs argued that the defendants had waived the right to assert admiralty jurisdiction as a basis for removal but that, in any event, admiralty jurisdiction alone would not be grounds for removal and there was no admiralty jurisdiction. 11/28/2018 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief in support of appellants filed by U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed an amicus brief in support of the companies, arguing that climate change was “a national and international problem requiring a uniform, coordinated federal response” and that a “patchwork of state law tort rules would be ineffective and unadministrable.” 11/21/2018 Brief Download Opening brief filed by appellants. Fossil Fuel Companies Urged Ninth Circuit to Rule That Local Governments’ Climate Cases Belong in Federal Court. Fossil fuel companies filed their opening brief in their appeal of the denial of their motions to remand lawsuits brought by California local governments seeking damages and other relief for climate change impacts. As a threshold matter, the companies argued that the remand order was reviewable because one of their grounds of removal had been the federal officer removal statute, which they contended provided the Ninth Circuit with jurisdiction to review the entire remand order. Alternatively, the companies argued that the district court had made a reviewable merits determination because the court’s remand decision rested in part on the district court’s conclusion that displacement of federal common law by the Clean Air Act would leave the plaintiffs without a federal remedy. On the merits, the companies argued that the case belonged in federal court because federal common law necessarily governed climate change nuisance claims. The companies also asserted numerous alternative grounds for removal, including that the case depended on resolving “substantial, disputed federal questions relating to the extraction, processing, promotion, and consumption of global energy resources” and that the local governments’ claims were completely preempted by Clean Air Act. Other grounds for removal cited by the companies were the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the federal enclave doctrine, the federal officer removal statute, the federal bankruptcy statutes, and admiralty jurisdiction. The local governments’ answering brief is due on January 22, 2019. 08/20/2018 Order Download Joint motion to consolidate appeals granted. Ninth Circuit Consolidated Fossil Fuel Companies’ Appeals of Remand Orders in Cases Brought by San Mateo County and Other Local Governments. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a joint motion to consolidate appeals of district court orders remanding cases brought by California cities and counties to hold fossil fuel companies liable for allegedly causing climate change impacts. The order consolidates the fossil fuel companies appeals in the cases brought by the County of San Mateo, County of Marin, City of Imperial Beach, County of Santa Cruz, City of Santa Cruz, and City of Richmond. The order also set a briefing schedule for the consolidated appeals: the fossil fuel companies’ opening brief is due by October 22, the answering brief is due by November 21, and an optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. The order also referred San Mateo County, Marin County, and Imperial Beach’s motion by for partial dismissal of the appeals to the merits panel. These appellees argue that the Ninth Circuit only has jurisdiction to review the issue of removal under the federal officer removal statute. 08/10/2018 Motion Download Joint motion to consolidate appeals filed. 07/31/2018 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron appellants submitting order dismissing New York City lawsuit. 07/03/2018 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs in response to appellants' letter concerning dismissal of Oakland and San Francisco cases. 06/29/2018 Notice Download Letter filed by Chevron appellants submitting order granting motions to dismiss the Oakland and San Francisco cases. Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. (Chevron) filed a letter with the Ninth Circuit notifying it of Judge Alsup's dismissal of San Francisco's and Oakland's nuisance lawsuits. Chevron argued that the dismissal demonstrated why the pending motion for partial dismissal should be referred to the merits panel so that the panel could consider the pending appeals of the remand order in this group of cases with the expected appeals in the San Francisco and Oakland cases.
06/21/2018 Reply Download Reply filed by plaintiffs-appellees' to defendants-appellants' opposition to motion for partial dismissal. 06/18/2018 Opposition Download Opposition filed to motion for partial dismissal. The fossil fuel companies argued that precedent on the scope of appellate review of remand orders was unclear and that the entire remand order was reviewable. The companies said removal under the federal officer removal statute was a “necessary predicate” for appellate review, but that once that predicate was satisfied, the court of appeals could review the entire order. They characterized the plaintiffs’ motion for partial dismissal as an attempt to prevent the merits panel from reaching the question of whether public nuisance claims based on alleged global warming effects necessarily arise under federal common law—a question on which two judges in the Northern District of California reached opposite answers. 06/06/2018 Motion Download Motion for partial dismissal filed by plaintiffs-appellees. California Municipalities Sought to Shut Down Fossil Fuel Companies’ Appeal of Order Remanding Climate Cases to State Court. On June 6, 2018, San Mateo and Marin Counties and the City of Imperial Beach moved for partial dismissal of fossil fuel companies’ appeal of a district court order remanding to state court the municipalities’ lawsuits seeking to hold the companies’ liable for climate change damages. The municipalities argued to the Ninth Circuit that the general bar on appellate review of orders remanding cases to state court applied to six of the seven grounds for removal that the companies’ asserted. The municipalities contended that the Ninth Circuit therefore should only review the district court’s rejection of the seventh ground for removal, which was based on the federal officer removal statute. 03/27/2018 Order Download Time schedule order issued. -
Chevron Corp. v. County of San Mateo
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 05/24/2021 Order Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded. Supreme Court Sent County of San Mateo Climate Case Back to Ninth Circuit for Review of Other Grounds for Removal. In the cases brought by County of San Mateo, two other California counties, and three California cities, the Supreme Court granted the fossil fuel companies' petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Ninth Circuit's decision affirming the district court's remand order. The Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's judgment in the case and remanded for further consideration in light of its decision in BP p.l.c. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore holding that the Fourth Circuit should have reviewed grounds for removal other than the federal officer removal statute. Justice Alito did not take part in the consideration of the case. 12/30/2020 Petition for Writ of Certiorari Download Petition for writ of certiorari filed. In December 2020, the fossil fuel companies filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Ninth Circuit decision affirming remand orders in cases brought by the County of San Mateo and other California local governments. The companies requested that the petition be held pending the outcome of the Baltimore case since their petition raises the same jurisdictional issue. -
County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 05/22/2018 Order Download Petition for interlocutory review denied. 05/07/2018 Reply Download Reply memorandum filed in support of petition for interlocutory review. 04/30/2018 Opposition Download Opposition filed to petition for interlocutory review. 04/19/2018 Petition Download Petition for interlocutory review filed. -
County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 06/23/2021 Notice Download Notice of voluntary dismissal of third-party complaints against Equinor ASA filed by Chevron third-party plaintiffs. 08/20/2020 Order Download Order issued clarifying the terms of the stay of remand. The court issued an order clarifying the stay of remand was intended to remain in place until the mandate issued and that the companies could have requested an additional stay. 08/17/2020 Reply Download Reply filed by the defendants in support of the administrative motion. 08/14/2020 Response Download Response filed to defendants' administrative motion. 08/10/2020 Motion Download Administrative motion filed by the defendants to confirm the stay or, in the alternative, to delay remand. The companies filed a motion in the district court to confirm that the court’s orders staying issuance of the remand orders pending appeal would extend to the conclusion of any Supreme Court proceedings. 07/10/2020 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Download Plaintiff filed notice of dismissal of Arch Coal, Inc. with prejudice. 07/01/2020 Notice Download Notice of dismissal of defendant Peabody Energy Corp. with prejudice filed by plaintiff. 04/09/2018 Order Download Motion to stay remand order pending appeal granted. California Federal Court Granted Fossil Fuel Companies’ Motion to Stay Order Remanding Counties’ and City’s Climate Case to State Court. The federal district court for the Northern District of California granted the defendants’ motion to stay its remand orders pending appeal in the climate change lawsuits brought by the Counties of San Mateo and Marin and the City of Imperial Beach against a number of fossil fuel companies. The court also certified for interlocutory appeal all issues addressed in the remand order. 04/02/2018 Opposition Download Plaintiffs filed opposition to motion to stay remand order pending appeal. 03/26/2018 Motion Download Motion to stay pending appeal filed by defendants. Fossil Fuel Companies Filed Notice of Appeal. On March 26, the defendants filed a notice of appeal and moved for a stay pending appeal. They argued that all facets of the remand order were appealable as of right because removal was based in part on the federal officer removal statute. The defendants also asserted that appellate review of the remand order was the “only avenue for immediate appellate review of these important and complex questions of federal jurisdiction” since Oakland and Francisco had elected not to seek interlocutory review of the denial of remand in their cases. 03/26/2018 Notice of Appeal Download Notice of appeal filed by defendants. 03/16/2018 Order Download Motions to remand granted; remand orders stayed for 42 days. California Federal Court Remanded San Mateo, Marin, and Imperial Beach Climate Cases to State Court. The federal district court for the Northern District of California remanded to state court the lawsuits brought by the Counties of San Mateo and Marin and the City of Imperial Beach against fossil fuel companies for damages arising from climate change. Citing the Supreme Court’s and Ninth Circuit’s decisions that the Clean Air Act displaced federal common law claims seeking abatement of greenhouse gas emissions (American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut) and federal common law claims seeking damages for defendants’ contributions to climate change (Native Village of Kivalina ExxonMobil Corp.), the district court concluded that the Clean Air Act also displaced federal common law in these three cases. The court disagreed with the determination in the Oakland and San Francisco cases that federal common law could apply to the claims in these cases because the claims were materially different from the damages claims in Kivalina. The court stated: “Simply put, these cases should not have been removed to federal court on the basis of federal common law that no longer exists.” The court also rejected other bases for removal, including the doctrine of complete preemption; jurisdiction based on the presence of a specific issue of federal law that must necessarily be resolved to adjudicate state law claims (Grable jurisdiction); and specialized statutory provisions cited by the defendants (the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, federal officer removal, and bankruptcy removal). The court stayed the remand order for 42 days. 01/25/2018 Motion Download Administrative motion to relate cases filed by defendants. The defendants requested that the San Mateo County, Marin County, and Imperial Beach cases be related to the County and City of Santa Cruz actions that also had been removed to federal court. 12/22/2017 Opposition Download Joint opposition to remand filed by defendants. Federal Court to Hear Arguments on February 15 on Whether to Remand. On December 22, 2017, the defendants filed papers opposing the plaintiffs’ motion to remand the actions to California state court. Their opposition papers argued that the plaintiffs’ claims could only arise under federal common law, that they raised substantial and disputed federal issues, that they were completely preempted by federal law, and that the claims were based on the defendants’ actions on federal lands and at the direction of the federal government or were removal under the bankruptcy removal statute. The defendants also made an alternative argument that even if plaintiffs were correct that state law applied to global climate change “of its own force,” the complaints still presented removable federal questions because federal law determined which state law should apply and when state law should apply. A hearing was scheduled for February 15, 2018 on the remand motion. 12/22/2017 Opposition Download Supplemental opposition to remand filed by subset of defendants. 12/15/2017 Complaint Download Third-party complaint filed by Chevron parties. Chevron Filed Third-Party Complaint Against Statoil in San Mateo and Imperial Beach Climate Change Lawsuits. On December 15, 2017, the Chevron defendants in the climate change lawsuits brought by the County of San Mateo and the City of Imperial Beach filed a third-party claim for indemnity and contribution against Statoil ASA (Statoil), an energy company for which the majority stakeholder is the Norwegian State. Statoil was originally a defendant in the cases, but the plaintiffs dismissed the complaint as to Statoil without prejudice in July 2017. The Chevron defendants asserted that City and County’s underlying claims against them were without merit but that if the claims were found to have merit, the plaintiffs’ allegations “would implicate Statoil as a party responsible for a portion of the injuries and damages Plaintiffs claim on the same basis as they would implicate the Chevron Parties and the other named Defendants.” 11/08/2017 Order Download Administrative motion to relate cases denied. The Executive Committee for the Northern District of California denied the motion by defendants in climate change cases brought by the Oakland and San Francisco city attorneys to relate those two cases to the pending cases brought by San Mateo and Marin Counties and the City of Imperial Beach. 11/06/2017 Not Available Download Statement regarding administrative motion to relate cases filed by plaintiffs. 11/03/2017 Opposition Download Joint response filed by Oakland and San Francisco in opposition to administrative motion to relate cases. 11/02/2017 Motion Download Administrative motion filed by defendants to relate cases. 10/23/2017 Memorandum Download Memorandum of points and authorities filed in support of motion to remand. 09/25/2017 Motion Download Motion to remand filed by plaintiffs. 09/12/2017 Order Download Stipulation and order to relate cases entered. 08/24/2017 Notice Download Notice of removal filed. Defendants Removed Cases to Federal Court. Defendants Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (together, Chevron) removed all three actions filed by two California counties and one city against fossil fuel companies to the federal district court for the Northern District of California. Chevron said all other defendants joined in or had consented to the notice of removal. Chevron also said the defendants would be moving “at the appropriate time” to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. Chevron asserted that though the complaint nominally asserted state law claims, it should be heard in a federal forum because there was federal question jurisdiction. Citing the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., Chevron argued that “[r]eflecting the uniquely federal interests posed by greenhouse gas claims like these,” the Ninth Circuit had recognized “that causes of action of the types asserted here are governed by federal common law, not state law.” Chevron also said removal was also authorized because the action “necessarily raises disputed and substantial federal questions that a federal forum may entertain without disturbing a congressionally approved balance of responsibilities between the federal and state judiciaries”; because the Clean Air Act and other federal statutes and the U.S. Constitution completely preempted the plaintiffs’ claims; because the action arose under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA); because a causal nexus existed between the alleged actions taken by the defendants pursuant to a federal officer’s directions and the plaintiffs’ claims and because the defendants could assert colorable federal defenses; because the claims were based on alleged injuries to or conduct on federal enclaves; and because the state law claims were related to bankruptcy cases. -
County of San Mateo v. Peabody Energy Corp. (In re: Peabody Energy Corp.)
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 05/06/2020 Opinion Download Eighth Circuit affirmed district court judgment upholding bankruptcy court's determination that claims against Peabody Energy Corporation were discharged in bankruptcy proceeding. Eighth Circuit Affirmed Bankruptcy Discharge of Climate Claims Against Coal Company. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court judgment that affirmed a bankruptcy court’s determination that California municipalities’ climate change-based common law and statutory nuisance claims against the coal company Peabody Energy Corporation (Peabody) were discharged during Peabody’s bankruptcy proceeding. The Eighth Circuit found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the bankruptcy plan’s exemptions for governmental claims brought “under any applicable Environmental Law” or “under any … applicable police or regulatory law.” The Eighth Circuit also rejected the municipalities’ argument that their public-nuisance claim asserted on behalf of the people of California was not a claim under bankruptcy law because it only entitled them to equitable relief. In addition, the Eighth Circuit agreed with the bankruptcy court all of the municipalities’ claims were directed at Peabody’s pre-bankruptcy conduct and therefore did not survive the bankruptcy. -
County of San Mateo v. Peabody Energy Corp. (In re Peabody Energy Corp.)
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 03/29/2019 Memorandum Download Bankruptcy court order enjoining prosecution of actions against Peabody affirmed. Missouri Federal Court Upheld Bankruptcy Court Order Requiring California Municipalities to Dismiss Lawsuits Against Peabody. A federal district court in Missouri upheld a bankruptcy court’s order requiring the San Mateo and Marin Counties and the City of Imperial Beach (the plaintiffs) to dismiss their climate change lawsuits against the reorganized Peabody Energy Corporation (Peabody). Peabody, a coal company, filed for bankruptcy in 2016 and emerged from bankruptcy in April 2017. The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit against Peabody and other defendants in July 2017. The district court found that Peabody’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan discharged the plaintiffs’ claim under California’s public nuisance statute because not only equitable but also legal relief was available to the plaintiffs for an alleged breach of the statute. The district court also found that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the plaintiffs’ other claims were not exempt from discharge. 09/20/2018 Memorandum Download Motion for stay pending appeal denied. Missouri Federal Court Denied California Local Governments’ Request for Stay Pending Appeal of Decision Enjoining Them from Pursuing Climate Claims Against Peabody Energy. The federal district court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied a motion by the County of San Mateo, the City of Imperial Beach, and the County of Marin (the appellants) for a stay pending appeal of a bankruptcy court’s decision enjoining them from pursuing their climate change tort law action against Peabody Energy Corporation (Peabody). The bankruptcy concluded that the appellants’ claims, which were filed in June 2017, were discharged in Peabody’s bankruptcy, from which it emerged in April 2017. In the appeal to the district court, the district court found that the appellants had not established either that they were likely to succeed on the merits or that they would suffer irreparable injury absent a stay pending appeal. -
In re Peabody Energy Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 12/08/2017 Order Download Governmental plaintiffs' motion for stay pending appeal denied. 11/26/2017 Notice of Appeal Download Notice of appeal filed. California Counties and City Appealed Bankruptcy Court Order Enjoining Climate Change Lawsuits Against Peabody Energy. San Mateo and Marin Counties and the City of Imperial Beach appealed the order of a federal bankruptcy court in Missouri enjoining them from pursuing their climate change lawsuits against the coal company Peabody Energy Corporation. 10/24/2017 Memorandum Opinion Download Plaintiffs enjoined from prosecuting causes of action against Peabody and ordered to dismiss causes of action with prejudice. Bankruptcy Court Said California City and Counties Could Not Sue Coal Company for Climate Change Impacts. A federal bankruptcy court in Missouri enjoined San Mateo and Marin Counties and the City of Imperial Beach (the plaintiffs) from pursuing their climate change lawsuits against Peabody Energy Corporation (Peabody). The plaintiffs alleged that Peabody (and a number of other fossil fuel companies) caused greenhouse gas emissions that resulted in sea level rise and damage to their property. Peabody, a coal company, filed for bankruptcy in April 2016 and emerged from bankruptcy under a plan that became effective on April 3, 2017. As an initial matter, the bankruptcy court said the plaintiffs had not established any basis for a claim because the complaints’ only Peabody-specific allegations were that Peabody had exported coal from terminals or ports in several California counties and was a member of organizations that plaintiffs said denied climate change. The court further concluded, however, that even assuming claims did exist, the claims were pre-bankruptcy petition claims that had been discharged under the bankruptcy plan because the plaintiffs had not filed proofs of claim. The court determined, moreover, that even if the plaintiffs’ claims could be construed as post-effective date claims (i.e., claims concerning conduct and harm after Peabody emerged from bankruptcy), the claims did not fall within the scope of a settlement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other governmental entities to allow continued enforcement of environmental laws related to ongoing mining operations. The bankruptcy court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that one of their nuisance claims did not constitute a “Claim” or “Liability” pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code and Peabody’s bankruptcy plan and therefore could not be discharged and enjoined. 09/26/2017 Opposition Download Objection filed to Peabody motion. California Counties and City Argued for Keeping Peabody in Climate Case. San Mateo and Marin Counties and the City of Imperial Beach (the plaintiffs) opposed Peabody Energy Corporation’s (Peabody) motion in federal bankruptcy court in Missouri to enjoin them from pursuing their public nuisance and tort law claims against Peabody. The plaintiffs filed lawsuits in California state court, since removed to federal court, alleging that Peabody and other defendants’ release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere made them responsible for sea level rise and other climate change impacts affecting their communities. Peabody argued that the discharge and injunction contained in its plan for reorganization barred the claims. The plaintiffs argued that multiple carve-outs in the injunction allowed them to proceed with their claims against Peabody. They contended that they were governmental plaintiffs exercising their police powers, that their statutory public nuisance cause of action did not constitute a “claim” subject to the injunction, and that their claims fell within a carve-out for governmental claims brought under “Environmental Law.” 08/28/2017 Motion Download Motion filed by Peabody Energy Corporation for entry of order enforcing the discharge and injunction set forth in the confirmation order and plan. Peabody Energy Sought Dismissal of California County and City Lawsuits Against Fossil Fuel Companies. On August 28, 2017, Peabody Energy Corporation (Peabody) asked the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to order San Mateo County, Marin County, and the City of Imperial Beach to dismiss complaints against Peabody filed in California Superior Court in July 2017. The Counties and City’s complaints sought relief from a number of fossil fuel companies, including Peabody, for alleged damage arising from climate change. Peabody—which emerged from bankruptcy in April 2017—argued that the complaints sought to “obliterate” Peabody’s “fresh start” by seeking damages and equitable relief based upon pre-bankruptcy petition conduct. Peabody asserted that the Counties and City’s claims were therefore discharged and enjoined pursuant to Peabody’s reorganization plan and the bankruptcy court’s confirmation order. -
County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 07/17/2017 Complaint Download Complaint filed. California Counties and City Sued Fossil Fuel Companies for Climate Change Damages. Three local governments in California (San Mateo County, Marin County, and the City of Imperial Beach) filed separate lawsuits in California Superior Court alleging that fossil fuel companies’ “production, promotion, marketing, and use of fossil fuel products, simultaneous concealment of the known hazards of those products, and their championing of anti-regulation and anti-science campaigns, actually and proximately caused” injuries to the plaintiffs, including more frequent and more severe flooding and sea level rise that jeopardized infrastructure, beaches, schools, and communities. Their complaints included claims for public nuisance, strict liability for failure to warn, strict liability for design defect, private nuisance, negligence, negligent failure to warn, and trespass. The relief sought by the local governments includes compensatory damages, abatement of the alleged nuisance, attorneys’ fees, punitive damages, and disgorgement of profits. -
County of Marin v. Chevron Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 07/10/2020 Notice Download Notice of dismissal of defendant Arch Coal, Inc. with prejudice filed by County of Marin. 07/01/2020 Notice Download Notice of dismissal of defendant Peabody Energy Corp. with prejudice filed by plaintiff. 08/24/2017 Notice Download Notice of removal filed. Defendants Removed Cases to Federal Court. Defendants Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (together, Chevron) removed all three of the actions to the federal district court for the Northern District of California. Chevron said all other defendants joined in or had consented to the notice of removal. Chevron also said the defendants would be moving “at the appropriate time” to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. Chevron asserted that though the complaint nominally asserted state law claims, it should be heard in a federal forum because there was federal question jurisdiction. Citing the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., Chevron argued that “[r]eflecting the uniquely federal interests posed by greenhouse gas claims like these,” the Ninth Circuit had recognized “that causes of action of the types asserted here are governed by federal common law, not state law.” Chevron also said removal was also authorized because the action “necessarily raises disputed and substantial federal questions that a federal forum may entertain without disturbing a congressionally approved balance of responsibilities between the federal and state judiciaries”; because the Clean Air Act and other federal statutes and the U.S. Constitution completely preempted the plaintiffs’ claims; because the action arose under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA); because a causal nexus existed between the alleged actions taken by the defendants pursuant to a federal officer’s directions and the plaintiffs’ claims and because the defendants could assert colorable federal defenses; because the claims were based on alleged injuries to or conduct on federal enclaves; and because the state law claims were related to bankruptcy cases. -
County of Marin v. Chevron Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 07/17/2017 Complaint Download Complaint filed. California Counties and City Sued Fossil Fuel Companies for Climate Change Damages. Three local governments in California (San Mateo County, Marin County, and the City of Imperial Beach) filed separate lawsuits in California Superior Court alleging that fossil fuel companies’ “production, promotion, marketing, and use of fossil fuel products, simultaneous concealment of the known hazards of those products, and their championing of anti-regulation and anti-science campaigns, actually and proximately caused” injuries to the plaintiffs, including more frequent and more severe flooding and sea level rise that jeopardized infrastructure, beaches, schools, and communities. Their complaints included claims for public nuisance, strict liability for failure to warn, strict liability for design defect, private nuisance, negligence, negligent failure to warn, and trespass. The relief sought by the local governments includes compensatory damages, abatement of the alleged nuisance, attorneys’ fees, punitive damages, and disgorgement of profits. -
City of Imperial Beach v. Chevron Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 07/10/2020 Notice Download Notice of dismissal of defendant Arch Coal, Inc. with prejudice filed by City of Imperial Beach. 07/01/2020 Notice Download Notice of dismissal of defendant Peabody Energy Corp. with prejudice filed by plaintiff. 08/24/2017 Notice Download Notice of removal filed. Defendants Removed Cases to Federal Court. Defendants Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (together, Chevron) removed all three of the actions to the federal district court for the Northern District of California. Chevron said all other defendants joined in or had consented to the notice of removal. Chevron also said the defendants would be moving “at the appropriate time” to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. Chevron asserted that though the complaint nominally asserted state law claims, it should be heard in a federal forum because there was federal question jurisdiction. Citing the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., Chevron argued that “[r]eflecting the uniquely federal interests posed by greenhouse gas claims like these,” the Ninth Circuit had recognized “that causes of action of the types asserted here are governed by federal common law, not state law.” Chevron also said removal was also authorized because the action “necessarily raises disputed and substantial federal questions that a federal forum may entertain without disturbing a congressionally approved balance of responsibilities between the federal and state judiciaries”; because the Clean Air Act and other federal statutes and the U.S. Constitution completely preempted the plaintiffs’ claims; because the action arose under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA); because a causal nexus existed between the alleged actions taken by the defendants pursuant to a federal officer’s directions and the plaintiffs’ claims and because the defendants could assert colorable federal defenses; because the claims were based on alleged injuries to or conduct on federal enclaves; and because the state law claims were related to bankruptcy cases. -
City of Imperial Beach v. Chevron Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 07/17/2017 Complaint Download Complaint filed. California Counties and City Sued Fossil Fuel Companies for Climate Change Damages. Three local governments in California (San Mateo County, Marin County, and the City of Imperial Beach) filed separate lawsuits in California Superior Court alleging that fossil fuel companies’ “production, promotion, marketing, and use of fossil fuel products, simultaneous concealment of the known hazards of those products, and their championing of anti-regulation and anti-science campaigns, actually and proximately caused” injuries to the plaintiffs, including more frequent and more severe flooding and sea level rise that jeopardized infrastructure, beaches, schools, and communities. Their complaints included claims for public nuisance, strict liability for failure to warn, strict liability for design defect, private nuisance, negligence, negligent failure to warn, and trespass. The relief sought by the local governments includes compensatory damages, abatement of the alleged nuisance, attorneys’ fees, punitive damages, and disgorgement of profits.