Description: Lawsuits alleging that fossil fuel companies caused cities' and county's climate change-related injuries.
-
County of Santa Cruz v. Chevron Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 08/20/2018 Order Download Appeal of remand order consolidated with San Mateo cases. -
County of Santa Cruz v. Chevron Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 07/18/2018 Notice of Appeal Download Notice of appeal filed. 07/10/2018 Order Download Motions to remand granted. California Federal Court Remanded Three More Municipal Climate Change Cases to State Court; Order Stayed Until Appeals of Other Remand Orders Are Resolved. The federal district court for the Northern District of California granted motions by the County of Santa Cruz, City of Santa Cruz, and City of Richmond to remand to state court their lawsuits seeking to hold fossil fuel companies liable for climate change harms. The court cited its previous remand order in cases brought by the County of San Mateo, County of Marin, and City of Imperial Beach. The court stayed the remand orders pending the outcome of appeals in those other cases. The defendants are appealing to the Ninth Circuit. 03/23/2018 Reply Download Reply filed by plaintiffs in support of motion to remand in response to Marathon Petroleum Corp.'s additional notice of removal. 03/20/2018 Opposition Download Opposition filed by Marathon Petroleum Corp. to plaintiffs' motion to remand in response to additional notice of removal. 03/16/2018 Reply Download Reply filed by plaintiffs in support of motion to remand; motion to remand filed in response to Marathon Petroleum Corp.'s additional notice of removal. 03/02/2018 Opposition Download Joint opposition to remand filed by defendants. 02/16/2018 Motion Download Motion to remand to state court filed by plaintiffs. 01/19/2018 Notice Download Notice of removal filed. Fossil Fuel Companies Removed Santa Cruz Lawsuits to Federal Court. The defendants in the Santa Cruz lawsuits removed those cases to federal court on January 19, 2018. The defendants in the Santa Cruz cases asserted that the plaintiffs’ claims implicated “uniquely federal interests” and were governed by federal common law. The defedants also asserted that the claims “attack federal policy decisions and threaten to upset longstanding federal-state relations, second-guess policy decisions made by Congress and the Executive Branch, and skew divisions of responsibility set forth in federal statutes and the United States Constitution” and therefore necessarily raised substantial and disputed questions of federal law. In addition, the defendants contended that the Clean Air Act completely preempted the claims and that the federal court had jurisdiction pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the federal officer removal statute, the federal enclave doctrine, and the bankruptcy removal statute. -
City of Santa Cruz v. Chevron Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 01/19/2018 Notice Download Notice of removal filed. -
City of Richmond v. Chevron Corp.
-
County of Santa Cruz v. Chevron Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 12/20/2017 Complaint Download Complaint filed. City and County of Santa Cruz Filed Lawsuits Against Fossil Fuel Companies Seeking Damages for Climate Change-Related Injuries. The City and County of Santa Cruz each filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court against 29 fossil fuel companies, alleging that greenhouse gas pollution from production and use of the defendants’ products had played “a direct and substantial role in the unprecedented rise in emissions of greenhouse gas pollution and increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations since the mid-20th century” and that the companies’ production, promotion, and marketing of their products, along with their concealment of the products’ known hazards and “championing of anti-regulation and anti-science campaigns,” had caused injuries to the City and County. The City and County alleged that the defendants were directly responsible for 17.5% of total global emissions of carbon dioxide between 1965 and 2015. The climate change-related injuries alleged by the City and County included drought, extreme precipitation and landslides, heat waves, wild fires, and sea level rise. The causes of action asserted in the complaint were public nuisance, strict liability based on failure to warn and design defect, private nuisance, negligence, and trespass. The City and County sought compensatory damages, equitable relief including abatement of the nuisance, punitive damages, and disgorgement of profits, as well as attorneys’ fees and other costs. -
City of Santa Cruz v. Chevron Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 12/20/2017 Complaint Download Complaint filed. -
City of Richmond v. Chevron Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 01/22/2018 Complaint Download Complaint filed. City of Richmond Filed Lawsuit in California State Court Seeking Climate Change Damages. On January 22, 2018, the City of Richmond, California, filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court against 29 fossil fuel companies. The City seeks damages and other relief for climate change-related injuries allegedly resulting from the defendants’ “production, promotion, marketing of fossil fuel products, simultaneous concealment of the known hazards of those products, and their championing of anti-science campaigns.” The complaint alleged that the defendants were directly responsible for 17.5% of global carbon dioxide emissions between 1965 and 2015, and that during the past 50 years the defendants had taken steps to protect their own assets from climate change effects while simultaneously promoting use of their products and working to undermine support for greenhouse gas regulation. The climate change-related injuries alleged by the City included sea level rise, more frequent and more severe flooding and storms, drought, and heatwaves. The City alleged that it had already spent significant funds to study, mitigate, and adapt to the effects of climate change. The causes of action asserted by the City are public nuisance, strict liability based on both design defect and failure to warn, private nuisance, negligence, negligent failure to warn, and trespass. The City seeks compensatory damages, equitable relief including abatement of the nuisance, punitive damages, and disgorgement of profits, as well as attorneys’ fees and other costs.