Description: Challenge to City of Richmond ordinance that prohibited transloading and export of coal and petroleum coke.
-
Levin Richmond Terminal Corp. v. City of Richmond
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 08/27/2020 Order Download Motions to dismiss granted in part and denied in part and motions to intervene and amici motions granted. California Federal Court Allowed Constitutional and Preemption Challenges to Proceed Against Richmond Ordinance Banning Coal and Petcoke Operations. The federal district court for the Northern District of California largely denied the City of Richmond and the Richmond City Council’s motions to dismiss challenges to an ordinance prohibiting the storage and handling of coal and petcoke. The plaintiffs are the operator of a port and marine terminal that is the only coal and petcoke bulk handling facility and marine shipment transfer point in the Bay Area; the operator of a nearby refinery that produces petcoke and uses the terminal to ship the product abroad; and a Utah company that mines and sources thermal coal. The plaintiffs all alleged that the City viewed reducing climate change as the ordinance’s objective. The court found that the plaintiffs stated plausible claims under the dormant Commerce Clause (based on a Pike balancing test but not on a theory of extraterritoriality) and foreign Commerce Clause, as well as under the Due Process, Equal Protection, and Takings Clauses. In addition, the court allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with claims that the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act and the Shipping Act of 1984 preempted the ordinance, but not with a claim of preemption by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. The court also granted leave for permissive intervention to Sierra Club and San Francisco Baykeeper. 03/04/2020 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Marine Terminal Challenged Richmond Ordinance Banning Coal Operations. The owner and operator of a marine terminal in the City of Richmond filed a lawsuit challenging a City ordinance that prohibited transloading and export of coal and petroleum coke. The plaintiffs alleged that the City and its mayor viewed the objective of the ordinance as to reduce global climate change. The complaint asserted causes of action under the Commerce Clause, the Takings Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, the Impairments Clause, the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, the Shipping Act of 1984, and the California Constitution. -
Wolverine Fuels Sales, LLC v. City of Richmond
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 03/04/2020 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Coal Company Challenged Richmond Ordinance Banning Coal Operations. A coal company with contracts to ship coal from a terminal in the City of Richmond filed a lawsuit challenging a City ordinance that prohibited transloading and export of coal and petroleum coke. The plaintiff alleged that the mayor viewed the objective of the ordinance as to reduce global climate change. The complaint asserted causes of action under the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Impairments Clause, the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, and the Shipping Act of 1984. -
Phillips 66 Co. v. City of Richmond
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 03/09/2020 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Refinery Operator Challenged Richmond Ordinance Banning Coal and Petcoke Operations. The owner of a refinery that produces petcoke filed a lawsuit challenging a City of Richmond ordinance that prohibited transloading and export of coal and petroleum coke (petcoke). The plaintiff alleged that the City viewed the objective of the ordinance as to reduce global climate change. The complaint asserted causes of action under the Commerce Clause and the Impairments Clause.