Description: Lawsuit seeking to recover climate change-related damages allegedly resulting from the defendant energy companies' production of fossil fuels and concealment of fossil fuels’ harms.
-
City of Hoboken v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 09/09/2021 Letter Download Defendants submitted letter in response to plaintiff's opposition to emergency request to stay remand order. 09/09/2021 Order Download Court temporarily stayed execution of remand order. 09/08/2021 Letter Download Defendants filed emergency request to stay remand order. 09/08/2021 Letter Download Plaintiff submitted letter opposing defendants' request for emergency stay. 09/08/2021 Opinion Download Motion to remand granted and defendants' motion to strike denied. New Jersey Federal Court Remanded Hoboken’s Climate Case Against Fossil Fuel Companies to State Court. A federal district court in New Jersey granted the City of Hoboken’s motion to remand to state court its climate change lawsuit against oil and gas companies. As a threshold matter, the court found that it would not be prudent to wait for federal courts of appeal to issue decisions in fossil fuel companies’ appeals of remand orders in other climate change cases. The court noted that it had no indication of when the courts of appeal would address the issues and, “[c]ritically,” that no such appeal was pending in the Third Circuit. On the merits of removal, the court first found that none of the exceptions to the well-pleaded complaint rule applied. The court held that the City’s claims were not completely preempted by the Clean Air Act and also was not persuaded by the companies’ argument that the claims necessarily arose under federal common law. The court found that, as pled, the complaint was “premised solely on state law” and that City of New York v. Chevron Corp.—in which the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of New York City’s climate change case against oil and gas companies—“merely suggests that Defendants may ultimately prevail with their federal preemption defense argument,” not that there was a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. The New Jersey court also found no basis for Grable jurisdiction, rejecting the companies’ arguments that the City’s claims necessarily raised substantial and actually disputed issues of federal law such as First Amendment issues or issues addressed by federal environmental statutes. The court also found that the “chain of causation” between the defendants’ activities on the outer continental shelf and the City’s claims was “too attenuated” for the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to provide a basis for jurisdiction. In addition, the court rejected the federal-officer removal statute, federal enclave jurisdiction, and the Class Action Fairness Act as grounds for removal. 04/15/2021 Notice Download Plaintiffs filed notice of supplemental authority and response to defendants' notice. In Hoboken’s case, the City argued that the Second Circuit itself had said that it was addressing a different question than the removability question at issue in a motion for remand. Hoboken also noted the district court’s decision in Minnesota v. American Petroleum Institute and a decision by the Central District of California as recent cases that had recently joined “the ever-growing chorus of courts” rejecting the defendants’ arguments for removal. 04/12/2021 Reply Download Reply brief filed in support of defendants' motion to strike new arguments in plaintiff's reply in support of its motion to remand. 04/09/2021 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority filed by defendants. Fossil fuel company defendants filed notices about the Second Circuit decision's affirming dismissal of New York City's climate change case in cases where motions to remand were pending, including in cases brought by the District of Columbia, City of Hoboken, City of Oakland, and City and County of San Francisco. The defendants argued that the Second Circuit’s decision confirmed that the plaintiff’s claims necessarily arise under federal law. The defendants also argued that the decision supported their other grounds for federal jurisdiction, including the federal officer removal statute, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, federal enclave jurisdiction, and Grable jurisdiction. 04/06/2021 Opposition Download Memorandum filed by plaintiff in opposition to defendants' motion to strike. 03/17/2021 Motion Download Motion filed by defendants to strike new arguments in plaintiff's reply in support of its motion to remand. In the City of Hoboken’s case against fossil fuel companies, the companies filed a motion on March 17, 2021 to strike arguments regarding collateral estoppel and a request for fees in Hoboken’s reply because they were raised for the first time. 02/26/2021 Reply Download Reply memorandum filed by plaintiff in support of its motion to remand. 01/29/2021 Opposition Download Opposition filed to motion to remand. 12/11/2020 Memorandum of Law Download Memorandum of law filed in support of motion to remand. 11/05/2020 Motion Download Motion for remand filed by City of Hoboken. 10/09/2020 Notice of Removal Download Notice of removal filed. -
City of Hoboken v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 09/02/2020 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Hoboken Filed Suit Seeking Damages from Energy Companies for Climate Change Impacts. The City of Hoboken, New Jersey filed a lawsuit in state court asserting climate change-based claims for damages and injunctive relief against energy companies and the American Petroleum Institute. The City alleged that the defendants caused climate change-related harms through production of fossil fuels and concealment of fossil fuels’ harms. The complaint alleged that Hoboken is “uniquely vulnerable to sea level rise” and that the city was experiencing more frequent and severe storms as a result of climate change. In response to these impacts, Hoboken alleged that it had developed an adaptation and mitigation plan to address rainfall and seawater flooding that would cost more than $500 million. The complaint asserted claims of public and private nuisance, trespass, negligence, and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The relief sought included compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages; treble damages under the Consumer Fraud Act; an order compelling the defendants to abate the alleged nuisance and to pay costs of abatement; an order enjoining future acts of trespass; and attorneys’ fees and costs.