Description: Lawsuit seeking damages and other relief from fossil fuel companies for climate change impacts allegedly caused by companies' conduct.
-
County of Maui v. Sunoco LP
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 10/30/2020 Notice of Removal This case was removed to federal court, where the motion for remand, and now the Ninth Circuit appeal from the district court's remand order, are being considered alongside City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP. See the Honolulu case page for developments in the federal court proceedings. -
County of Maui v. Sunoco LP
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 06/24/2022 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by defendants. 06/24/2022 Opposition Download Plaintiff filed opposition to joint motion to dismiss. 05/25/2022 Motion to Dismiss Download Joint motion to dismiss filed by defendants. 10/12/2020 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Maui County Filed Climate Change Suit Against Fossil Fuel Companies. On October 12, 20201, the County of Maui filed a lawsuit in Hawai‘i Circuit Court against fossil fuel companies seeking to hold them liable for climate change impacts. In its complaint, Maui alleged that the defendant companies were “directly responsible for the substantial increase in all CO2 emissions between 1965 and the present” and that but for the defendants’ participation in “denialist campaigns” to mislead the public about the role of their products in causing climate change, the impacts of climate change “would have been substantially mitigated or eliminated altogether.” The adverse climate change impacts alleged to affect Maui include sea level rise and related flooding, inundation, erosion, and beach lose; extreme weather; ocean warming and acidification; increasingly scarce freshwater supplies; loss of habitat for endemic species; and social and economic consequences of these environmental changes. Maui asserted causes of action for public nuisance, private nuisance, strict liability failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, and trespass. The complaint asked the court for compensatory damages, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, and costs of suit.