Description: Lawsuit seeking damages and other relief from fossil fuel companies for alleged conduct that the City and County of Honolulu contends actually and proximately caused climate change impacts.
-
Sunoco LP v. City & County of Honolulu
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. The petition in cases brought by the City and County of Honolulu and the County of Maui also presented a question regarding the application of the federal officer removal statute. Justice Alito did not participate in the consideration of or decision on the petitions. 02/22/2023 Reply Download Reply brief filed by petitioners. Briefing was completed for the petition for writ of certiorari in Honolulu's and Maui County's cases on February 22, 2023. The petition was distributed for the justices’ March 17 conference and had not been rescheduled as of March 1. 02/06/2023 Brief Download Brief filed by respondents. 01/05/2023 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amicus curiae National Association of Manufacturers in support of petitioners. 01/05/2023 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America as amicus curiae supporting petitioners. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed an amicus brief arguing that the Ninth Circuit misapplied the federal-officer removal statute. 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 Hawaii local governments' cases to state court. The fossil fuel companies presented the following question, which is the same as or similar to the question presented in other climate cases for which certiorari petitions are currently pending: “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.” In Honolulu and Maui's case, the companies also sought review of the following question regarding the application of the federal officer removal statute: Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that the federal officer removal statute “precludes removal by federal officers and persons acting under them unless the removing defendant’s colorable federal defense arises out of the defendant’s federal duty.” 09/21/2022 Letter Download Application for extension of time within which to file petition for writ of certiorari granted. -
City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 07/29/2022 Not Available Download Mandate issued. 07/07/2022 Opinion Download Remand orders affirmed. Ninth Circuit Affirmed Remand Orders in Honolulu and Maui Cases. Noting that it was not writing on a “blank slate” and citing its earlier decision in County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp. as well as decisions of the First, Fourth, and Tenth Circuits, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that fossil fuel company defendants could not show federal jurisdiction in climate change lawsuits brought by the City and County of Honolulu and the County of Maui. The Ninth Circuit therefore affirmed the remand of the cases to state court. At issue in these appeals were jurisdiction under the federal-officer removal statute, federal enclave jurisdiction, and jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). Regarding federal-officer removal jurisdiction, the Ninth Circuit rejected arguments that the defendants acted under federal officers in connection with production of oil and gas under the Defense Production Act, when they repaid offshore oil leases in kind and contracted with the government to operate the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, when they conducted offshore oil operations, or when they operated the Elk Hills oil reserve. The Ninth Circuit further found that even if the defendants did operate under a federal officer, they failed to cite federal defenses that stemmed from official duties and were colorable. Regarding federal enclave jurisdiction, the Ninth Circuit said the defendants’ oil and gas operations on federal enclaves were too remote from the plaintiffs’ asserted injuries (i.e., climate change harms arising from the defendants’ allegedly deceptive conduct). Regarding OCSLA jurisdiction, the Ninth Circuit found that the companies’ exploration, development, and production on the Outer Continental Shelf was “too attenuated and remote” from the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. The court said ruling for the defendants would “dramatically expand” OCSLA’s scope and lead to “unstable” results. 05/20/2022 Letter Download The plaintiffs argued that in San Mateo the Ninth Circuit had rejected the same arguments for OCSLA jurisdiction that the defendants advanced in their May 4, 2022 notice of supplemental authority. The plaintiffs also argued that the San Mateo OCSLA analysis confirmed that the defendants failed to establish the “nexus” prong for federal-officer removal, and that the defendants’ new evidence “rehashes” the same sorts of arrangements and relationships that the San Mateo decision rejected as a basis for federal-officer removal. 05/04/2022 Letter Download Defendants-appellants filed notice of supplemental authority (County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.). After the Ninth Circuit affirmed the remand orders in County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., energy industry defendants-appellants submitted a letter to the Ninth Circuit in Honolulu’s and Maui’s cases arguing that the “significantly expanded record” in these cases included evidence that cured deficiencies that the San Mateo identified in the basis for federal-officer removal. The companies also said expert evidence in the record in the Honolulu and Maui cases supported removal under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). 02/22/2022 Order Download Submission of the case vacated and further proceedings held in abeyance pending the issuance of the mandate in County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp. 02/22/2022 Order Download Submission of the case vacated and further proceedings held in abeyance. Ninth Circuit Appeal of Remand Order Will Await Outcome of County of San Mateo Appeal. The fossil fuel companies’ appeals of the remand orders in Honolulu’s case and the County of Maui’s case are still pending in the Ninth Circuit, which heard oral argument on February 17, 2022. On February 22, the Ninth Circuit vacated the submission of the case and ordered that further proceedings be held in abeyance until the mandate is issued in County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., in which the Ninth Circuit will review the entire remand order—not just the federal-officer removal issue—following the Supreme Court’s remand of the case after the Court’s decision in BP p.l.c. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore. 02/14/2022 Letter Download Response filed by defendants-appellants to plaintiffs-appellees' citation of supplemental authorities (Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County case). 02/14/2022 Letter Download Defendants-appellants filed response to plaintiffs-appellees' citation of supplemental authorities (Tenth Circuit decision in Boulder case). 02/09/2022 Letter Download Plaintiffs-appellees submitted letter regarding supplemental authority (Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County case). 02/09/2022 Letter Download Plaintiffs-appellees submitted supplemental authorities (Tenth Circuit decision in Boulder case). 02/02/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by defendants-appellants in response to plaintiffs-appellants' citation of supplemental authority regarding federal-officer jurisdiction. 02/02/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by defendants-appellants in response to plaintiffs-appellees citation of supplemental authority regarding federal-officer jurisdiction. 02/02/2022 Notice Court provided notice of oral argument on Thursday, February 17, 2022. 01/25/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by defendants-appellants in response to plaintiffs-appellees' citation of supplemental authorities regarding federal-officer jurisdiction. 01/25/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by defendants-appellants in response to the plaintiffs-appellees' citation of supplemental authorities regarding federal-officer removal. 01/24/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees to provide notice of supplemental authority on federal-officer removal. 01/24/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees to provide notice of supplemental authority regarding federal-officer jurisdiction. 01/18/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees to provide notice of supplemental authority regarding federal-officer removal and federal-enclave jurisdiction. 01/18/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees to provide notice of supplemental authority regarding federal-officer removal. 01/18/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees regarding supplemental authority (remand order in Delaware case). 01/11/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by defendants-appellants to provide notice of supplemental authority regarding federal-officer removal. 01/06/2022 Letter Download Supplemental authority submitted by plaintiff-appellees regarding federal officer removal arguments. 11/24/2021 Reply Download Reply filed by appellants in support of their motion to take judicial notice. 11/18/2021 Response Download Response filed by appellees to appellants' motion for judicial notice. The plaintiffs responded that the Ninth Circuit could take judicial notice of the existence of the transcripts but could not “take the additional step of drawing inferences against Appellees as to disputed issues based on the transcripts’ contents.” The plaintiffs stated that they had never “conceded” that their claims arose from defendants’ products and not from their alleged misrepresentations. 11/08/2021 Motion Download Motion to take judicial notice filed by appellants. The companies filed a motion for the Ninth Circuit to take judicial notice of two state court transcripts, which they said included statements by plaintiffs’ counsel that the theory of liability in the plaintiffs’ lawsuits encompassed increased combustion of fossil fuel products. The defendants said these statements had “a clear and ‘direct’ connection” to the jurisdictional questions at issue in these cases because the plaintiffs argued that the “allegedly exclusive focus on misrepresentation” as the basis for their theory of liability prevented federal-officer removal or removal based on the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. 11/08/2021 Reply Download Reply brief filed by appellants. Briefing on the fossil fuel companies’ appeals of the remand orders in Honolulu’s and Maui County’s cases was completed on November 8. The Ninth Circuit announced that oral argument would be held on February 18, 2022 if the court decides to hear oral arguments. 09/24/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by Robert Brulle et al. in support of plaintiffs-appellees and affirmance. 09/24/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by municipal organizations as amici curiae in support of plaintiffs-appellees. 09/24/2021 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by Charles Fletcher in support of appellees and remand. 09/24/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by Hawai'i State Association of Counties as amicus curiae in support of appellees and affirmation. 09/24/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by legal scholars as amici curiae in support of plaintiffs-appellees. 09/24/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by Hawaii and other states as amici curiae in support of the City and County of Honolulu and the County of Maui. 09/17/2021 Brief Download Answering brief filed. Honolulu and Maui filed their answering brief in the Ninth Circuit urging the court to affirm the remand orders in their cases. They argued that none of the requirements for removal under the federal-officer removal statute were met, and that neither the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act nor federal enclave jurisdiction provided a basis for federal jurisdiction. Six amicus briefs were filed in support of Honolulu and Maui. 07/26/2021 Amicus Brief Download Amici curiae brief filed by General (Retired) Richard B. Myers and Admiral (Retired) Michael G. Mullen in support of defendants-appellants. A retired general and a retired admiral wrote in an amicus brief that they “strongly believe … important national and international policy issues should be addressed to Congress and the Executive Branch, not adjudicated piecemeal across the country in a multitude of state courts.” 07/26/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America as amicus curiae in support of appellants and reversal. 07/19/2021 Brief Download Opening brief filed by appellants. Briefing began in fossil fuel companies’ appeals of the remand orders in cases brought by the City and County of Honolulu and the County of Maui. The companies argued that the actions were removable under the federal-officer removal statute, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and federal enclave jurisdiction. They also preserved their argument that Honolulu’s and Maui’s claims necessarily arose under federal law because they related to interstate and international air emissions, an argument rejected by the Ninth Circuit in City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c., as well as the argument that the plaintiffs’ claims depend on the resolution of substantial federal questions related to the federal government’s exclusive control over navigable waters of the United States, issues of treaty interpretation, issues of constitutional law, and federal relations. 05/11/2021 Order Download Motion to extend time for filing opening brief granted. The Ninth Circuit granted fossil fuel companies’ motion to extend their time for filing opening briefs in their appeals of remand orders in cases brought by the County of Maui and the City and County of Honolulu. The parties agreed that the deadline for opening briefs should be extended to July 19, 2021 because the Supreme Court’s decision in Baltimore would determine the scope of issues before the Ninth Circuit. 05/10/2021 Response Download Non-opposition filed by plaintiff to defendants' motion to extend time to file opening brief. 04/30/2021 Motion Download Motion for extension of time to file opening brief filed by defendants. Fossil fuel companies appealing the District of Hawaii’s remand order in cases brought by the City and County of Honolulu and the County of Maui asked the Ninth Circuit for a 60-day extension of time in which to file their opening brief. They sought the extension to allow them to address the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision in BP p.l.c. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, which the companies said would determine whether the defendants were limited to contesting only the district court’s rejection of jurisdiction under the federal-officer removal statute. Maui and Honolulu oppose the extension request. 03/13/2021 Order Download Emergency motion to stay the remand order denied. Ninth Circuit Declined to Stay Remand Order in Honolulu and Maui Cases. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied fossil fuel companies’ emergency motions for stay pending appeal of a district court order remanding cases brought by the City and County of Honolulu and the County of Maui seeking climate change damages. The Ninth Circuit found that the companies failed to establish irreparable injury with arguments regarding increased litigation burdens, possible inefficiencies, and the possibility that a state court could “irrevocably” adjudicate the plaintiffs’ claims while the appeals were pending. The Ninth Circuit also found that the companies did not make a sufficient showing on the merits, given the Ninth Circuit’s decisions in County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp. and City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c. 03/12/2021 Reply Download Reply filed in support of the emergency motion to stay the remand order. 03/10/2021 Response Download Response filed by City & County of Honolulu to emergency motion to stay the remand order. 03/08/2021 Motion Download Emergency motion to stay the remand order filed. -
City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 03/31/2023 Order Application to transfer appeal to Supreme Court granted. Hawai‘i Supreme Court to Hear Fossil Fuel Companies’ Appeal of Denial of Motion to Dismiss Honolulu Climate Case. On March 31, 2023, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court granted a request by City & County of Honolulu and the Honolulu Board of Water Supply (Honolulu) that the Supreme Court hear fossil fuel companies’ appeal of a Hawai‘i Circuit Court’s denial of motions to dismiss Honolulu’s claims seeking to hold the companies’ liable for an alleged “multi-decadal campaign of deception and disinformation that succeeded in delaying the transition to a lower carbon economy that … could have avoided the worst” of climate change-related effects. Honolulu argued that transfer of the appeal from the intermediate appellate court was mandatory because the appeal presented one or more questions “of imperative or fundamental public importance.” In particular, Honolulu argued that the appeal “implicates the authority of political subdivisions to seek remedies for injuries to their residents’ constitutionally guaranteed interests in the State’s natural resources caused by corporate misconduct.” Honolulu characterized the appeal as presenting questions of “first impression” and “novel legal questions[s]” about both personal jurisdiction and the application of Hawai‘i tort law. 03/03/2023 Application Download Application for transfer to the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i filed by petitioners/plaintiffs/appellees. -
City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 07/22/2022 Order Download Motion to dismiss appeal granted as to circuit court's declining to rule on the applicability of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and otherwise denied. -
City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 09/12/2022 Answer Download Part I of defendants Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Inc.'s answer to the first amended complaint filed. 09/12/2022 Answer Download Part II of defendants Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Inc.'s answer to the first amended complaint filed. 04/07/2022 Order Download Motion to dismiss BHP Group Limited and BHP Group plc for lack of personal jurisdiction granted. 03/31/2022 Order Download Motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction denied. 03/29/2022 Order Download Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim denied. Hawai‘i State Court Issued Final Orders Denying Oil and Gas Companies’ Motions to Dismiss Honolulu’s Climate Case but Granted Mining Company’s Motion. At the end of March 2022, a Hawai‘i trial court entered orders denying fossil fuel companies’ motions to dismiss Honolulu’s climate change lawsuit for failure to state a claim and for lack of personal jurisdiction. The orders finalized the court’s earlier rulings denying the motions. In the order on the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court was persuaded by Honolulu’s characterization of its claims as traditional tort law claims. The court concluded that federal common law did not govern or preempt Honolulu’s claims and that the Clean Air Act did not preempt them. In the order on the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the court found that Honolulu made a prima facie showing for specific jurisdiction for the oil company defendants but rejected Honolulu’s argument that there was general jurisdiction as to two oil company defendants based on the alter ego theory. 03/10/2022 Minute Order Download Court granted request that Division that decided motions to dismiss also hear motion for interlocutory appeal. 03/08/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by the parties regarding anticipated motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal. In a March 8, 2022 letter, the defendants informed the court that they intended to file a motion for interlocutory appeal of the two orders once they were finalized. 02/28/2022 Ruling Download Motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction denied. 02/28/2022 Ruling Download Mining company motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction granted. In a separate ruling, the court dismissed Australian mining company defendants from the case because there were insufficient contacts for specific jurisdiction and “it would be unreasonable to bring a foreign country entity into the forum based only on indirect forum contacts from 24 years ago,” when a local subsidiary that had last engaged in business activity in the forum before becoming inactive. 02/22/2022 Ruling Download Motion to dismiss denied. Hawai'i State Court Allowed Honolulu to Proceed with Climate Change Case Against Fossil Fuel Companies. A Hawai'i trial court denied fossil fuel companies’ motion to dismiss the City and County of Honolulu’s climate change lawsuit for failure to state a claim. The court described the case as “an unprecedented case for any court, let alone a state court trial judge,” but concluded that it was “still a tort case” and “based exclusively on state law causes of action,” primarily failures to disclose, failures to warn, and deceptive marketing. The court distinguished the Second Circuit’s decision in City of New York v. Chevron Corp., which affirmed the dismissal of state-law claims grounded in fossil fuel companies’ alleged production, marketing, and sale of “massive quantities of fossil fuels” despite their knowledge that use of the fuels would lead to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The Hawai'i court noted that the defendants in this case framed Honolulu’s claims as seeking “de facto regulation” of global fossil fuel emissions, much as the Second Circuit framed New York City’s claims as targeting “lawful commercial activity” in a way that would compel development of pollution control measures, thereby regulating cross-border emissions. The Hawai'i court, however, found Honolulu’s framing of its claims as traditional tort law claims to be “more accurate.” Given the plaintiffs’ framing of their claims, the Hawai‘i court concluded that neither the Clean Air Act nor federal common law preempted Honolulu’s claims. The court found “no unique federal interest” in the alleged failure to disclose harms or in the alleged deceptive promotion of fossil fuels, no “significant conflict” between any “concrete and specific” federal policy or interest and the application of Hawai'i law, and “no concrete showing” by the defendants “that a damages award in this case would somehow regulate emissions.” In addition, the court rejected contentions that the out-of-state or international character of some of the conduct at issue made preemption appropriate. Regarding defendants’ arguments that this case and other climate change cases are based on “artful pleading,” the court stated: “Respectfully, we often see artful pleading in the trial courts, where new conduct and new harms first arise.” The court continued: “Here, the causes of action may seem new, but in fact are common. They just seem new—due to the unprecedented allegations involving causes and effects of fossil fuels and climate change. Common law historically tries to adapt to such new circumstances.” The court directed the parties to formalize the “brief outline” that constituted its ruling and also noted that it would address motions to dismiss on personal jurisdiction or due process grounds in separate orders that it hoped to finish “this week or next.” For more analysis of the decision, see Sabin Center Climate Law Fellow Korey Silverman-Roati’s post in the Climate Law Blog. 02/15/2022 Order Download Court denied special motion filed by Chevron defendants to strike and/or dismiss the complaint pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP law. 02/03/2022 Ruling Download Chevron defendants' special motion to strike denied. 09/30/2021 Reply Download Reply memorandum of law filed in support of defendants BHP Group Limited and BHP Group plc's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. 08/20/2021 Response Download Joint response filed by defendants to briefs of amici curiae State of Hawai'i and Hawai'i State Association of Counties. 08/18/2021 Reply Download Reply filed by Chevron defendants in support of special motion to strike and/or dismiss the complaint pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP law. 08/18/2021 Reply Download Reply filed by ExxonMobil in support of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. 08/18/2021 Reply Download Joint reply memorandum filed in support of defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. 08/18/2021 Reply Download Joint reply memorandum filed in support of the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. 08/06/2021 Amicus Brief Download Amicus curiae brief filed by Hawai'i State Association of Counties in support of plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss. 08/06/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amicus curiae State of Hawai'i. 07/19/2021 Opposition Download Opposition filed by plaintiffs to Chevron defendants' special motion to strike and/or dismiss pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP law. 07/19/2021 Opposition Download Plaintiffs filed opposition to defendants' joint motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. 07/19/2021 Opposition Download Plaintiffs filed opposition to defendants' joint motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and ExxonMobil's supplemental memorandum in support of motion. 06/24/2021 Response Download Response filed by court to letter requesting transfer of Maui action to Honolulu action for pretrial purposes. 06/02/2021 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by defendants BHP Group Limited and BHP Group PLC. 06/02/2021 Motion to Dismiss Download Special motion filed by Chevron defendants to strike and/or dismiss the complaint pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP law. 06/02/2021 Motion to Dismiss Download Supplemental memorandum filed by ExxonMobil in support of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. 06/02/2021 Motion to Dismiss Download Joint motion to dismiss the first amended complaint filed by the defendants. 03/22/2021 Complaint Download First amended complaint filed. 03/09/2020 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Honolulu Sued Fossil Fuel Companies in State Court. The City and County of Honolulu filed a lawsuit in Hawai’i state court alleging that the actions of fossil fuel company defendants directly and proximately caused “a substantial portion of the climate crisis-related impacts in the City,” including sea level rise, extreme weather, ocean warming and acidification, impacts on freshwater supplies, loss of habitat for endemic species, and “the cascading social, economic, and other consequences of those environmental changes.” The City alleged that these consequences would include injury to and destruction of critical City-owned or -operated facilities and would require the City to incur costs for adaptation and resiliency, while also reducing tax revenue due to impacts on the tourism- and ocean-based economy. The alleged wrongful conduct by the defendants included “concealing the dangers of, promoting false and misleading information about, and engaging in massive campaigns to promote increasing use of their fossil fuel products,” which the complaint alleged had “contributed substantially to the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere that drives global warming.” Honolulu asserted claims of public nuisance, private nuisance, strict liability for failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, and trespass. The City seeks compensatory damages; equitable relief, including abatement of the nuisance; punitive damages; disgorgement of profits; attorneys’ fees; and costs of suit. -
City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 03/15/2021 Letter Download Transmittal letter sent to Hawai'i Circuit Court after Ninth Circuit denied stay. 03/05/2021 Order Download Defendants' motion to stay execution of remand order denied and temporary stay to seek relief before the Ninth Circuit granted. On March 5, 2021, the court denied the companies’ motions to stay the remand order but delayed transmission of the order to the state courts for 10 days to allow the companies to seek relief in the Ninth Circuit. 02/26/2021 Opposition Download Opposition filed to defendants' motion to stay. 02/18/2021 Motion Download Motion to stay execution of remand order pending appeal filed by defendants. 02/18/2021 Notice of Appeal Download Notice of appeal filed by defendants. 02/16/2021 Order Download Transmission of remand order temporarily stayed. 02/12/2021 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron defendants requesting delay in transmission of remand order to state courts. 02/12/2021 Order Download Motion to remand granted. Hawai‘i Federal Court Sent Honolulu’s Climate Case Back to State Court; Fossil Fuel Companies Appealed. The federal district court for the District of Hawai‘i remanded the case brought by the City and County of Honolulu seeking to hold fossil fuel companies liable for climate change-related damages. The court rejected three grounds for federal jurisdiction because the Ninth Circuit rejected them in City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c., 969 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2020): (1) that the plaintiffs’ claims arose under federal common law; (2) that federal law preempted the claims; and (3) that the claims necessarily raised disputed and substantial federal issues (Grable jurisdiction). The court then concluded that because the plaintiffs elected to pursue claims based on the companies’ alleged concealment of the climate change risks of fossil fuels and not on the defendants’ extraction and production of fossil fuels, their claims did not relate to the companies’ activities on the Outer Continental Shelf, under the direction of federal officers, or on federal enclaves, and the companies therefore established no other basis for federal jurisdiction. With respect to federal-officer jurisdiction, the district court noted that this case was similar to County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp. in which the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court finding that the federal-officer removal statute did not provide jurisdiction. The Hawai‘i district court found that any additional evidence provided by the companies in these cases did not establish that the companies acted under a federal officer with respect to oil and gas leases, operation of a National Petroleum Reserve, or supplying to the strategic petroleum reserve; the court also found no causal connection between the plaintiffs’ concealment-based claims and actions the companies contended were taken at the direction of a federal officer. In addition, the court found that the companies made only conclusory assertions that colorable federal defenses existed. 11/04/2020 Order Download Proceedings stayed pending completion of briefing on the anticipated motion to remand in the County of Maui case. 10/30/2020 Reply Download Reply filed in support of motion to remand. 10/09/2020 Opposition Download Defendants filed opposition to remand. 09/11/2020 Motion Download Motion to remand filed by plaintiff. 09/09/2020 Order Download Defendants' request for reconsideration of stay denied. The District of Hawaii on September 9 declined to reconsider its order lifting the stay in the City and County of Honolulu’s case against fossil fuel companies. The district court rejected the companies’ contention that it should reconsider lifting the stay in light of the Ninth Circuit’s stay of the issuance of the mandate in County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp. The District of Hawaii said it remained “unpersuaded that the contingent utility of a stay in this case outweighs proceeding in the normal course with, at the very least, Plaintiff’s anticipated motion to remand.” 09/08/2020 Response Download Response filed by plaintiff to defendants' further update to status report and request for reconsideration. 09/04/2020 Request Download Defendants filed update to further status report and request for reconsideration of stay. The defendants filed a request that the court reconsider its decision to lift the stay in light of Ninth Circuit’s stay of the mandate in County of San Mateo. 08/21/2020 Order Litigation stay lifted. After the Ninth Circuit’s decisions on jurisdictional issues in the County of San Mateo and City of Oakland cases, the court concluded that the stay of the proceedings was no longer appropriate. The court stated that there was “not a strong likelihood of acceptance of certiorari or reversal” in the County of San Mateo and City of Oakland cases; that the defendants would not be irreparably injured absent a stay; that a further stay would “substantially injure” the plaintiff by prolonging the proceedings; and that there was “always a public interest” in “prompt” resolution of a dispute. The court gave Honolulu a deadline of September 11, 2020 for filing a motion to remand. 08/21/2020 Status Report Download Update to further status report filed by Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. regarding development in Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Inc. v. Chevron Corp. 08/20/2020 Status Report Download Update to joint further status report filed by Honolulu regarding issuance of mandate in Oakland appeal. 08/18/2020 Status Report Download Joint further status report filed with defendants' and Honolulu's positions on the plan for next steps. 06/11/2020 Order Extension of stay granted. 06/09/2020 Response Download Joint response filed requesting that stay continue and suggesting that parties submit status report within 14 days of the later of (a) the expiration of the deadline for filing a petition for panel rehearing and/or rehearing en banc if no such petition(s) are filed, or (b) the Ninth Circuit’s denial of petition(s) filed in one or both cases; or (c) issuance of decision(s) by the Ninth Circuit resolving any petition(s) filed in one or both cases. 05/01/2020 Order Proceedings and deadlines stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's resolution of the San Mateo and Oakland appeals. 04/30/2020 Response Download Response to briefing order filed by Honolulu. 04/30/2020 Response Download Response to briefing order filed by defendants. 04/20/2020 Order Order issued directing parties to file briefs that (1) identify all appeals that are relevant to the facts and issues in this case and which are currently pending before any United States Court of Appeals or the United States Supreme Court; (2) state the issues presented in the appeal(s); and (3) address the propriety of a stay of the proceedings in this case pending the resolution of the appeal(s). 04/15/2020 Notice of Removal Download Notice of removal filed by Chevron Corp. and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. -
County of Maui v. Chevron USA Inc.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 05/11/2021 Order Download Motion to extend time to file opening brief granted. The Ninth Circuit granted fossil fuel companies’ motion to extend their time for filing opening briefs in their appeals of remand orders in cases brought by the County of Maui and the City and County of Honolulu. The parties agreed that the deadline for opening briefs should be extended to July 19, 2021 because the Supreme Court’s decision in Baltimore would determine the scope of issues before the Ninth Circuit. 05/10/2021 Response Download Non-opposition filed by plaintiff to defendants' motion to extend time to file opening brief. 04/30/2021 Motion Download Motion for extension of time to file opening brief filed by defendants. Fossil fuel companies appealing the District of Hawaii’s remand order in cases brought by the City and County of Honolulu and the County of Maui asked the Ninth Circuit for a 60-day extension of time in which to file their opening brief. They sought the extension to allow them to address the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision in BP p.l.c. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, which the companies said would determine whether the defendants were limited to contesting only the district court’s rejection of jurisdiction under the federal-officer removal statute. Maui and Honolulu oppose the extension request. 03/13/2021 Order Download Emergency motion for stay of the remand order denied. Ninth Circuit Declined to Stay Remand Order in Honolulu and Maui Cases. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied fossil fuel companies’ emergency motions for stay pending appeal of a district court order remanding cases brought by the City and County of Honolulu and the County of Maui seeking climate change damages. The Ninth Circuit found that the companies failed to establish irreparable injury with arguments regarding increased litigation burdens, possible inefficiencies, and the possibility that a state court could “irrevocably” adjudicate the plaintiffs’ claims while the appeals were pending. The Ninth Circuit also found that the companies did not make a sufficient showing on the merits, given the Ninth Circuit’s decisions in County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp. and City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c. 03/12/2021 Reply Download Reply filed in support of emergency motion to stay the remand order. 03/10/2021 Response Download Response filed by County of Maui to emergency motion to stay the remand order. 03/08/2021 Motion Download Emergency motion to stay the remand order filed. -
County of Maui v. Sunoco LP
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 03/15/2021 Letter Download Transmittal letter sent to Hawai'i Circuit Court. 03/05/2021 Order Download On March 5, 2021, the court denied the companies’ motion to stay the remand order but delayed transmission of the order to the state court for 10 days to allow the companies to seek relief in the Ninth Circuit. 02/26/2021 Opposition Download Opposition filed to defendants' motion to stay. 02/18/2021 Motion Download Motion to stay execution of remand order pending appeal filed by defendants. 02/18/2021 Notice of Appeal Download Notice of appeal filed by defendants. 02/16/2021 Order Download Transmission of remand order temporarily stayed. 02/12/2021 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron defendants requesting delay in transmission of remand order to state courts. 02/12/2021 Order Download Motion to remand granted. Hawai‘i Federal Court Sent Maui’s Climate Case Back to State Court; Fossil Fuel Companies Appealed. The federal district court for the District of Hawai‘i remanded the cases brought by the County of Maui seeking to hold fossil fuel companies liable for climate change-related damages. The court rejected three grounds for federal jurisdiction because the Ninth Circuit rejected them in City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c., 969 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2020): (1) that the plaintiffs’ claims arose under federal common law; (2) that federal law preempted the claims; and (3) that the claims necessarily raised disputed and substantial federal issues (Grable jurisdiction). The court then concluded that because the plaintiffs elected to pursue claims based on the companies’ alleged concealment of the climate change risks of fossil fuels and not on the defendants’ extraction and production of fossil fuels, their claims did not relate to the companies’ activities on the Outer Continental Shelf, under the direction of federal officers, or on federal enclaves, and the companies therefore established no other basis for federal jurisdiction. With respect to federal-officer jurisdiction, the district court noted that this case was similar to County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp. in which the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court finding that the federal-officer removal statute did not provide jurisdiction. The Hawai‘i district court found that any additional evidence provided by the companies in these cases did not establish that the companies acted under a federal officer with respect to oil and gas leases, operation of a National Petroleum Reserve, or supplying to the strategic petroleum reserve; the court also found no causal connection between the plaintiffs’ concealment-based claims and actions the companies contended were taken at the direction of a federal officer. In addition, the court found that the companies made only conclusory assertions that colorable federal defenses existed. 12/22/2020 Opposition Download Opposition filed to motion to remand. 12/11/2020 Request Download Joint request to vacate scheduling conference filed. 11/25/2020 Motion Download Motion to remand filed by County of Maui. 11/04/2020 Order Download Briefing schedule set for anticipated remand motion and all other proceedings and deadines stayed. 10/30/2020 Notice of Removal Download Notice of removal filed. Defendants Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. removed the case to federal court on October 30, 2020 and indicated that all other joined and served defendants consented to removal.