Description: Action by Colorado local governments seeking damages and other relief from fossil fuel companies for climate change harms.
-
Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 03/16/2023 Brief Download Brief filed for the United States as amicus curiae. 10/03/2022 Order List Download United States invited to file a brief. Supreme Court Invited Solicitor General to Submit U.S.’s Views on Certiorari Petition Concerning Jurisdictional Issues in Local Government Climate Case. On October 3, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States on the petition for writ of certiorari filed by fossil fuel companies seeking review of the Tenth Circuit’s opinion upholding the remand order in the climate change case brought by Boulder and San Miguel Counties and the City of Boulder. 08/24/2022 Opposition Download Brief in opposition filed. 08/24/2022 Reply Download Reply brief filed by petitioners. 07/11/2022 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by Indiana and 15 other states as amici curiae in support of petitioners. 07/11/2022 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by Washington Legal Foundation as amicus curiae supporting petitioners. 07/11/2022 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America as amicus curiae in support of petitioners. 07/11/2022 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by American Petroleum Institute as amicus curiae in support of petitioners. 07/08/2022 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by National Association of Manufacturers as amicus curiae in support of petitioners. 07/07/2022 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by Atlantic Legal Foundation and DRI Center for Law and Public Policy as amici curiae in support of petitioners. 06/08/2022 Petition for Writ of Certiorari Download Petition for writ of certiorari filed. Fossil Fuel Companies Asked Supreme Court to Review Remand Order in Colorado Localities’ Climate Case. On June 8, 2022, fossil fuel companies filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking the U.S. Supreme Court’s review of the Tenth Circuit’s decision affirming the remand to state court of climate change cases brought against the companies by Colorado local governments. The petition presented two questions: (1) Whether federal common law necessarily and exclusively governs claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effect of interstate greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate; and (2) Whether a federal district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 over claims necessarily and exclusively governed by federal common law but labeled as arising under state law. The response to the petition is due on August 10. -
Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 06/06/2022 Order Application to extend time to file denied. 05/26/2022 Application Download Companies filed an application for an additional extension of time within which to file a petition for writ of certiorari. The fossil fuel companies requested that the time to file be extended until July 8, which the companies said would allow them “to sharpen the issues for review.” 04/29/2022 Letter Download Application to extend time granted. Justice Gorsuch granted an application to extend the time for filing a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Tenth Circuit’s opinion affirming the remand order in the case brought by Boulder County, the City of Boulder, and San Miguel County. Justice Gorsuch extended the time to file until June 8, 2022. 04/26/2022 Application Download Companies filed application for an extension of time in which to file a petition for writ of certiorari. -
Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 03/02/2022 Not Available Download Mandate issued. 02/08/2022 Opinion Download District court's remand order affirmed. Tenth Circuit Ruled that Colorado Municipalities’ Climate Case Against Energy Companies Belonged in State Court. On February 8, 2022, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the remand order sending a case brought by three Colorado municipal governments alleging climate change-based claims against energy companies back to state court. In a 2020 decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the remand order but only reached the question of whether the defendants had properly removed the case based on the federal officer removal statute. In 2021, however, the Supreme Court vacated that decision after holding in Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP p.l.c. that appellate jurisdiction over remand orders such as this one, where federal officer removal was one of the asserted grounds for removal, extends to the entire remand order, and not just to federal officer removal. In its February 8 decision, the Tenth Circuit again considered and rejected federal officer removal as a basis for federal jurisdiction, concluding that the companies did not establish that one of the defendants, ExxonMobil Corporation (Exxon), “acted under” a federal officer by complying with the terms of its outer continental shelf leases. Second, the Tenth Circuit found that federal district courts would not have original jurisdiction over the municipal governments’ case. The Tenth Circuit held that neither federal common law nor the Clean Air Act completely preempted the municipalities’ state-law claims. The Tenth Circuit distinguished the Second Circuit’s 2021 decision affirming the dismissal of New York City’s climate change-based claims against energy companies, noting that the Second Circuit’s decision was not in the removal context, which allowed the Second Circuit to consider the companies’ ordinary (as opposed to complete) preemption defense. The Tenth Circuit also held that there was no “substantial federal question” (i.e., Grable) jurisdiction because the federal issues asserted by the companies—related to foreign affairs and weighing of the costs and benefits of fossil fuel production—were neither necessary to the municipalities’ claims nor substantial to the federal system. In addition, the Tenth Circuit rejected the companies’ argument that there was federal enclave jurisdiction based on the complaint’s allegations of injuries within Rocky Mountain National Park and the Uncompahgre National Forest. The Tenth Circuit also found that there was not a sufficient connection between the municipalities’ claims and Exxon’s operations on the outer continental shelf to provide a basis for jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. 10/19/2021 Letter Download Letter submitted by defendants-appellants requesting oral argument. 10/19/2021 Response Download Letter filed by defendants-appellants in response to plaintiffs' submission of remand order in City of Hoboken v. Exxon Mobil Corp. as supplemental authority. 10/05/2021 Letter Download Letter submitted by plaintiffs-appellees regarding supplemental authority (remand order in City of Hoboken v. Exxon Mobil Corp.). 07/16/2021 Brief Download Supplemental brief filed by appellants. The fossil fuel companies’ supplemental brief focused on their argument that federal common law necessarily governed the local governments’ claims because the claims concerned injuries allegedly caused by interstate emissions. The companies argued that the Second Circuit’s recent decision affirming the dismissal of New York City’s climate case supported their position because New York’s claims were “indistinguishable” from the claims in this case. The local governments took the position that the Second Circuit’s decision regarding the application of federal common law was distinct from the jurisdictional question at issue in this case; the local governments also argued, however, that the Second Circuit’s decision was incorrect. 07/16/2021 Brief Download Supplemental brief filed by appellees. The local governments argued that the court should reject the companies’ remaining arguments for removal (federal common law, Grable (substantial federal question), complete preemption, federal enclave jurisdiction, and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act). 06/25/2021 Order Download Order issued setting schedule for supplemental briefing. The Tenth Circuit directed the parties to file supplemental briefs simultaneously on July 16 to address the import of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Baltimore case. 06/25/2021 Order Download Mandate recalled and judgment vacated after Supreme Court decision in Baltimore case. 05/24/2021 Letter Download Letter sent to Tenth Circuit clerk by Supreme Court clerk. 07/29/2020 Letter Download Mandate issued. 07/07/2020 Opinion Download Remand order affirmed in part and remainder of appeal dismissed. Tenth Circuit Affirmed Remand Order in Colorado Localities’ Climate Suits Against Oil and Gas Companies. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court order remanding to Colorado state court a lawsuit brought by Boulder County and two other local governments seeking to hold oil and gas companies liable for climate change-related damages allegedly caused by the companies. The Tenth Circuit determined that its appellate jurisdiction was limited to the issue of federal officer removal. It therefore did not address the five other grounds for removal on which the companies relied in their appeal. The Tenth Circuit also found that ExxonMobil Corporation, one of the companies, failed to establish grounds for federal officer removal. The Tenth Circuit is the third federal appeals court to affirm the remand of a climate change lawsuit brought by local governments (the others are the Fourth and Ninth Circuits). 06/12/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by defendants-appellants in response to plaintiffs' letters of June 3, 2020 regarding the Ninth Circuit's decisions in City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c. and County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp. 06/03/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs regarding supplemental authority (City of Oakland v BP p.l.c.). 06/03/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs regarding supplemental authority (County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.). 05/11/2020 Reply Download Reply filed by plaintiffs-appellees in support of motion for summary affirmance. 05/06/2020 Not Available Oral argument held. The Tenth Circuit heard oral argument telephonically on May 6, 2020 in the fossil fuel companies’ appeal of the remand order in the climate change lawsuit brought by the City and County of Boulder and San Miguel County. 05/04/2020 Response Download Opposition filed by appellants to motion for summary affirmance. 04/24/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees in response to defendants-appellants April 10, 2020 letter concerning supplemental authority. 04/24/2020 Motion Download Motion for summary affirmance filed by plaintiffs-appellees. Localities Argued for Summary Affirmance Based on Fourth Circuit Decision. The plaintiffs-appellees moved for summary affirmance of the remand order, arguing that the doctrine of collateral estoppel barred Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) from relitigating the issues of the scope of appellate jurisdiction and the merits of federal-officer removal because the Fourth Circuit decided these issues against Exxon in Baltimore’s lawsuit. The plaintiffs-appellees also argued that although collateral estoppel did not apply against the other defendants—who are not defendants in Baltimore’s lawsuit—the other defendants lack an independent basis for appeal since they did not raise their own federal-officer argument. 04/10/2020 Letter Download Response filed by defendants-appellants in response to plaintiffs-appellees' letter regarding the Fourth Circuit's decision affirming the remand order in the Baltimore case. 04/10/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by defendants-appellants in response to the plaintiffs-appellants' March 31, 2020 letter regarding Rodriguez v. FDIC. 04/10/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by defendants-appellants regarding supplemental authority. 04/08/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by defendants-appellants expressing preference for telephonic argument instead of postponement of argument. 03/31/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees regarding the Fourth Circuit's decision in the Baltimore case. The plaintiffs-appellees notified the Tenth Circuit of the Fourth Circuit’s decision affirming the remand order in Baltimore's case. The plaintiffs-appellees told the Tenth Circuit that the Fourth Circuit’s decision supported affirmation of the remand order in this case. 03/31/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees regarding supplemental authority (Rodriguez v. FDIC). 01/22/2020 Reply Download Reply brief filed by appellants. Briefing was completed in fossil fuel companies’ Tenth Circuit appeal of the remand of Boulder and San Miguel Counties and the City of Boulder’s lawsuit. The defendants filed their reply brief on January 22, 2020, reiterating their arguments that the Tenth Circuit should review the entire remand order, not just the district court’s determination that removal was not proper under the federal-officer removal statute, and that there were multiple valid grounds for removal. 01/14/2020 Response Download Response filed by Suncor appellants to motions for leave to file amicus briefs. The Suncor appellants said they had no objection to the court's consideration of the amicus briefs. 01/07/2020 Order Download Order issued directing defendants-appellants to file a written response to the amicus motions by January 14, 2020. The Tenth Circuit directed the defendants to file a response to the amicus motions by January 14. 01/06/2020 Amicus Motion Download Motion filed by National League of Cities et al. for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of appellees, urging affirmance. Public Citizen, three national local government associations, Natural Resources Defense Council, and a 31-member coalition of local governments in Colorado filed amicus motions in support of the plaintiffs-appellees. 01/06/2020 Amicus Motion Download Motion filed by Public Citizen for leave to file brief as amicus curiae in support of appellees and affirmance. 01/06/2020 Amicus Motion Download Motion filed by Colorado Communities for Climate Action to participate as amicus curiae in support of appellees. 01/06/2020 Amicus Motion Download Motion filed by Natural Resources Defense Council for leave to file brief as amicus curiae in support of appellees and affirmance. 12/20/2019 Brief Download Brief filed by appellees. On December 20, 2019, Boulder County, the City of Boulder, and San Miguel County filed their brief in the Tenth Circuit, arguing that the appellate court could only review removal under the federal-officer removal statute, which they argued did not provide a basis for removal of their case. The plaintiffs-appellees also argued that the well-pleaded complaint rule governed removal under the general removal statute and that jurisdiction could not rest on unpled federal common law. In addition, the plaintiffs-appellees said their claims for relief did not necessarily depend on resolution of a substantial and disputed federal issue and that there was no complete preemption, federal enclave jurisdiction, or jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 11/25/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America in support of appellants and reversal. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed an amicus brief in the Tenth Circuit amplifying the fossil fuel companies’ arguments that federal common law provided a basis for federal jurisdiction and that the appellate court could review the entire remand order. 11/18/2019 Brief Download Brief filed by appellants. Opening Brief Filed in Tenth Circuit Seeking Reversal of Remand Order in Colorado Municipalities' Climate Change Case Against Fossil Fuel Companies. Fossil fuel companies argued in a brief to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeal that they had properly removed a case brought by Colorado municipal governments in which the plaintiffs seek to hold the companies liable for the impacts of climate change. The companies’ opening brief contended that the appellate court had jurisdiction to review the entirety of the remand order, not just the district court's conclusion that the federal officer removal statute did not provide a basis for removal. The companies further argued that there were multiple grounds for removal, including that the plaintiffs’ claims asserted injuries were caused by nationwide (and worldwide) greenhouse gas emissions and therefore necessarily arose under federal, not state, common law. In addition, the companies argued that the presence of substantial, disputed federal questions invoked federal jurisdiction and that the case was also subject to federal jurisdiction under the federal officer removal statute, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and federal enclave doctrine, and due to complete preemption by the Clean Air Act. 10/17/2019 Order Download Motion for stay of remand order denied. 10/10/2019 Reply Download Reply brief filed by plaintiffs-appellees in support of motion for partial dismissal. 10/08/2019 Motion Download Motion filed by defendants-appellants for emergency stay of the remand order pending appeal. 10/08/2019 Motion Download Motion filed by defendants-appellants for clarification of the court's order regarding their stay motion. 10/08/2019 Order Download Clerk's order issued directing plaintiffs-appellees to file a response to the stay motion by October 18, 2019. 10/08/2019 Order Download Clerk's order issued referring the plaintiffs'-appellees' motion for partial dismissal of the appeal to the merits panel. 10/08/2019 Order Download Clerk's order issued in response to defendants' motion for clarification. The Tenth Circuit clarified that the defendants' motion for a stay remained pending and that the response to the motion was due October 18. 10/03/2019 Opposition Download Opposition filed by appellants to appellees' motion for partial dismissal. 09/20/2019 Motion Download Motion for partial dismissal filed by plaintiffs-appellees. After the defendants filed an appeal of the district court's remand order in the Tenth Circuit, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss all aspects of the appeal except for the defendants’ appeal of the district court’s determination that there was no federal officer removal jurisdiction. -
Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 05/24/2021 Order Petition granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded. On May 24, 2021, the Supreme Court granted the fossil fuel companies' petition for writ of certiorari and vacated the Tenth Circuit's judgment affirming the remand order. The Supreme Court remanded to the Tenth Circuit for consideration of grounds for removal other than the federal-officer removal statute in light of the Court's May 17 decision in BP p.l.c. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore. 03/05/2021 Brief Download Brief in opposition filed. The Boards of County Commissioners of Boulder County and San Miguel County and the City of Boulder (plaintiffs) filed their opposition to fossil fuel companies’ petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the district court order remanding their climate change case. The plaintiffs agreed with the companies that this case presented the same question regarding the scope of appellate review of remand orders as BP p.l.c. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, in which the Court heard oral argument in January. The plaintiffs did not object to the companies’ position that the petition should be held pending the decision in Baltimore and then disposed of pursuant to the Baltimore decision. The Court distributed the petition for its April 16 conference and then again for its May 20 conference. 12/04/2020 Petition for Writ of Certiorari Download Petition for writ of certiorari filed. In December 2020, fossil fuel companies filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Tenth Circuit decision affirming the remand order in the climate change case brought by the City of Boulder and Boulder and San Miguel Counties in Colorado. The companies requested that the petition be held pending the outcome of the Baltimore case since their petition raises the same jurisdictional issue. -
Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 10/22/2019 Order Application for recall of remand order denied. Justice Sotomayor, the circuit justice for the Tenth Circuit, denied the application for recall of the remand order. The federal district court in the case notified the state court of the remand order on October 8, immediately after denying oil and gas companies’ emergency motion for a stay. 10/17/2019 Application Download Application for recall of the remand order pending appeal filed by defendants. -
Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 10/08/2019 Motion Download Emergency motion for a temporary stay of execution of the remand order filed by defendants. 10/08/2019 Notice Download Email sent by federal court case administration specialist informing Boulder County District Court that case had been ordered remanded and directing parties to file all future pleadings in Boulder County District Court. 10/08/2019 Order Download Emergency motion for a temporary stay of execution denied. 10/07/2019 Order Download Defendants' motion for stay of remand order pending appeal denied and clerk directed to remand case to Boulder County District Court. 09/23/2019 Reply Download Reply filed in support of defendants' motion for a stay of the remand order pending appeal. 09/19/2019 Opposition Download Opposition filed by plaintiffs to defendants' motion for stay of the remand order pending appeal. 09/13/2019 Motion Download Motion filed by defendants for stay of the remand order pending appeal. 09/06/2019 Motion Download Defendants filed emergency motion for a temporary stay of execution of the remand order. 09/06/2019 Notice of Appeal Download Notice of appeal filed by defendants. 09/06/2019 Order Download Defendants' emergency motion for a temporary stay of execution of the remand order granted. On September 6, 2019, the court granted the defendants’ emergency motion for a temporary stay pending the court’s ruling on the defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal. 09/05/2019 Order Download Motion to remand granted. Colorado Federal Court Remanded Local Governments’ Climate Case to State Court. On September 5, 2019, a federal district court in Colorado ruled that oil and gas companies had not met their burden of showing that federal jurisdiction existed for climate change-related claims asserted by Boulder County, San Miguel County, and the City of Boulder. Citing the well-pleaded complaint rule, the court concluded that removal was not appropriate based on federal question jurisdiction because the plaintiffs’ claims did not on their face raise the federal issues of energy, the environment, and national security. The court said the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs’ state law claims were governed by federal common law appeared to be a matter of ordinary preemption, which would not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction. The district court also found that the defendants did not establish that the plaintiffs’ claims necessarily depended on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law. In addition, the court rejected the contention that the Clean Air Act or foreign affairs doctrine completely preempted the plaintiffs’ claims and also indicated that federal common law would not provide a basis for complete preemption. The court also was not persuaded that federal jurisdiction existed based on federal enclave jurisdiction, federal officer jurisdiction, jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, or jurisdiction based on the claims’ relationship to bankruptcy proceedings. 07/22/2019 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority filed by plaintiffs regarding District of Rhode Island remand order. 06/25/2019 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority filed by plaintiffs regarding District of Maryland remand order. 05/15/2019 Order Download Order issued cancelling hearing. 02/27/2019 Order Download Hearing on motion to remand scheduled for May 30, 2019. 11/13/2018 Reply Download Reply memorandum of law filed in support of plaintiffs' motion to remand. 10/12/2018 Opposition Download Opposition filed by defendants to plaintiffs' motion to remand. Fossil Fuel Companies Opposed Remand of Colorado Localities’ Climate Change Lawsuit. On October 12, 2018, fossil fuel company defendants in the climate change lawsuit brought by the City of Boulder, Boulder County, and San Miguel County filed their opposition to remand. The companies argued that the claims necessarily arose under federal common law, and that even if only state-law claims were asserted, the claims necessarily raised disputed and substantial federal issues. In addition, the companies argued that the Clean Air Act and other federal statutes completely preempted the claims and that federal jurisdiction was also available pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the federal officer removal statue, federal enclave doctrine, and the bankruptcy removal statute. 09/10/2018 Motion Download Motion for extension of time to supplement designation of non-parties at fault filed by defendants. 09/10/2018 Notice Download Notice of designation of non-parties at fault filed by defendants. 08/31/2018 Memorandum of Law Download Brief submitted in support of plaintiffs' motion to remand. Brief Filed in Support of Remand Motion in Boulder Climate Change Cases. On August 31, 2018, Boulder County, San Miguel County, and the City of Boulder filed a memorandum of law in the federal district court for the District of Colorado in support of their motion to remand their case seeking to hold fossil fuel companies liable for causing climate change-related damages, including increased wildfires, extreme weather, and drought. They filed the remand motion on July 30, 2018. In the memorandum of law, the plaintiffs argued that they had “filed state law claims, in state court, for harms suffered entirely in Colorado.” They argued that the well-pleaded complaint rule therefore foreclosed the fossil fuel companies’ argument that their claims were actually federal common law claims. In addition, they asserted that even if an unpled federal common law claim could be the basis for removal, federal common law did not govern their claims. The plaintiffs also argued that federal issues raised by the defendants were defenses and therefore did not create federal jurisdiction. In addition, the plaintiffs asserted that the Clean Air Act did not completely preempt their claims, and that the defendants’ other avenues for federal jurisdiction were not viable. 08/28/2018 Notice Download Supplemental notice of related cases filed by defendants. 07/30/2018 Motion Download Motion to remand filed. Boulder and San Miguel Counties and City of Boulder Moved to Remand Climate Change Lawsuits to State Court. On July 30, 2018, the Boulder County Board of County Commissioners, the San Miguel County Board of County Commissioners, and the City of Boulder moved to remand their climate change lawsuit against four fossil fuel companies to state court. The plaintiffs said they would fully brief the remand issues in accordance with a schedule ordered by the court. 07/24/2018 Order Download Order issued setting schedule for remand motion. The court set a schedule for the remand motion. The plaintiffs’ brief is due on August 31, the defendants must file a response by October 12, and the plaintiffs may file a reply on or before November 12. The court denied without prejudice a motion for an indefinite continuance of discovery and initial disclosures and said the parties could re-file before a magistrate judge if they consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. 06/29/2018 Notice Download Notice of removal filed. The defendants filed their notice of removal on June 29, 2018—almost three weeks after the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add a civil conspiracy claim. The defendants asserted a number of bases for removal, including, “[f]irst and foremost,” that the plaintiffs’ claims could only arise under federal common law due to the “uniquely federal interests” at stake, including energy, environmental, and national security policy. The additional grounds for removal asserted by the defendants included complete preemption of plaintiffs’ claims by the Clean Air Act; the necessary and unavoidable presence of disputed and substantial federal issues; federal enclave doctrine; the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act; federal officer removal; and bankruptcy removal. -
Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.), Inc.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 01/25/2021 Order Download Suncor motion to dismiss or transfer venue denied as to City of Boulder and Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County and granted as to Board of County Commissioners of San Miguel County. Colorado Court Ruled on Venue for Colorado Local Governments’ Climate Change Claims. A Colorado District Court in Boulder County denied fossil fuel company defendants’ motion to transfer the City of Boulder and Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County’s action seeking damages for climate change harms to Denver County District Court, but ruled that venue for the claims of the third plaintiff—the Board of County Commissioners of San Miguel County—would only be proper in San Miguel County. The court found that a forum selection clause in a 2009 Master Contract between one of the defendants and San Miguel County for sale and purchase of asphalt that specified Denver as the venue did not apply; nor did the forum selection clauses in “Confirmation Contracts” that the defendant and San Miguel County executed in 2018 and 2019 after this lawsuit commenced. The court found that the public nuisance venue statute did not apply because the plaintiffs sought damages, not an injunction to abate the nuisance; the court also found that venue was not proper in Boulder County under the venue statute for tort actions because the plaintiffs did not satisfy their burden of demonstrating that the alleged tortious conduct and deceptive trade practices did not occur in the county. In addition, the court declined to find venue was proper in Boulder County based on the defendant’s subsidiary’s production of fossil fuels in the county. The court agreed, however, with the City and County of Boulder that venue was proper under the statute governing venue in actions affecting real property because the City and County alleged direct injury to real property in the county and sought remedies related to that property. The court further found that the plaintiffs conceded that venue in Boulder County was not proper for San Miguel under this statute. Counsel for San Miguel County indicated that claims against a defendant that did not join the venue transfer motion would continue to be heard in Boulder County. 06/11/2018 Complaint Download Amended complaint filed. 04/17/2018 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Colorado Local Governments Sued Fossil Fuel Companies for Climate Change Damages. Three Colorado local government entities—the City of Boulder and the Boards of County Commissioners of Boulder and San Miguel Counties—filed a lawsuit against fossil fuel companies seeking damages and other relief for the companies’ role in causing climate change. The local governments alleged they already had suffered and incurred expenses to respond to climate change-related harms stemming from increased and more serious heat waves, wildfires, droughts, and floods, and that these harms would worsen over time. They asserted that the defendants—Exxon Mobil Corporation and affiliates of Suncor Energy Inc.—“knowingly and substantially contributed to the climate crisis by producing, promoting and selling a substantial portion of the fossil fuels that are causing and exacerbating climate change, while concealing and misrepresenting the dangers associated with their intended use.” The plaintiffs asserted causes of action for public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass, and unjust enrichment, as well as a claim of deceptive trade practices under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. They asked the court to award them monetary relief as compensation for their past and future damages and for costs to mitigate climate change’s impacts and also sought remediation or abatement of the hazards by “practical means,” though the complaint expressly disclaimed requests to enjoin oil and gas operations or sales, to enforce emissions controls, relief related to injuries on federal lands, or relief based on defendants’ lobbying activities.