Description: Lawsuit filed by the District of Columbia against oil and gas companies for allegedly violating the Consumer Protection Procedures Act by misleading consumers about “the central role their products play in causing climate change.”
-
District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 12/23/2022 Motion Download Appellants filed motion for an emergency stay of the remand order pending appeal. 12/23/2022 Order Download Remand order administratively stayed. D.C. Circuit Granted Administrative Stay of Remand Order. On December 23, 2022, the D.C. Circuit granted the companies’ request for an administrative stay of the remand order pending the D.C. Circuit’s consideration of the companies’ emergency motion for a stay pending appeal. Briefing on the emergency motion was scheduled to be completed by January 20. -
District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 12/20/2022 Order Download Motion to stay execution of remand order pending appeal denied. Federal District Court Declined to Stay Remand Order in D.C.’s Climate Case Against Fossil Fuel Companies. On December 20, 2022, the federal district court for the District of Columbia denied fossil fuel companies’ motion to stay execution of the court’s order remanding the District of Columbia’s lawsuit alleging that the companies violated D.C.’s consumer protection law by knowingly misrepresenting the effects of the companies’ products. The district court found that the companies did not establish irreparable harm with their arguments regarding the potential litigation burden and the risk that a final judgment by the D.C. Superior Court could render their “right to appeal hollow.” 12/19/2022 Reply Download Reply filed in support of defendants' motion to stay execution of remand order pending appeal. 12/12/2022 Opposition Download Opposition filed by District of Columbia to defendants' motion to stay remand pending appeal. 11/28/2022 Motion Download Memorandum filed in support of defendants' motion to stay execution of remand order pending appeal. 11/28/2022 Notice of Appeal Download Notice of appeal filed by defendants. 11/14/2022 Order Emergency motion for a temporary stay of execution of remand order granted. 11/13/2022 Motion Download Emergency motion filed by defendants for a temporary stay of execution of remand order. 11/12/2022 Memorandum Opinion Download Motion to remand granted. Federal Court Found No Federal Jurisdiction for D.C.’s Consumer Protection Lawsuit Against Fossil Fuel Companies. The federal district court for the District of Columbia granted the District of Columbia’s motion to remand to D.C. Superior Court a lawsuit alleging that energy companies violated D.C.’s consumer protection law by knowingly misrepresenting the effects of fossil fuel products. The court first found that the companies failed to show that federal common law should apply to D.C.’s claims. The court reasoned that even assuming that D.C.’s claims implicated “uniquely federal” interests (e.g., interstate pollution, navigable waters of the United States, and foreign affairs), the companies did not show a “significant conflict” between those interests and D.C.’s claims. The court further found that even if federal common law applied, the well-pleaded complaint rule would bar federal jurisdiction, rejecting the suggestion that the doctrine of complete preemption provided an exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule in this case. The court noted that the Supreme Court has only recognized complete preemption in the context of federal statutes, not federal common law. The court next found that the defendants did not establish that the Grable exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule applied because the defendants failed to identify a disputed federal issue that was necessary to resolve D.C.'s consumer protection claims. The court also found that federal enclave jurisdiction did not apply and that removal was improper under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act’s (OCSLA’s) broad jurisdictional grant because the alleged false advertising and misleading information campaigns were not “operation[s]” under OCSLA and because activities on the outer Continental Shelf were not shown to be the but-for cause of D.C.’s injuries. In addition, the court found that federal-officer removal did not apply because even if the defendants acted under the federal government’s direction in their development of fossil fuel products, there was not a nexus between D.C.’s claims and the asserted federal authority. The court also rejected arguments that there was diversity jurisdiction or jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. 10/18/2022 Response Download District of Columbia filed response to defendants' response to notice of supplemental authority regarding District of Maryland remand decision in Annapolis/Anne Arundel cases. 10/07/2022 Response Download Response filed by defendants to notice of supplemental authority regarding District of Maryland remand decision in Annapolis/Anne Arundel cases. 09/30/2022 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority filed by District of Columbia regarding District of Maryland remand decision in Annapolis/Anne Arundel cases. 09/02/2022 Response Download Response filed by defendants to District of Columbia's notice of supplemental authority (Third Circuit decision in City of Hoboken/Delaware cases). 08/24/2022 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority (Third Circuit decision in City of Hoboken/Delaware cases) filed by District of Columbia. 07/27/2022 Response Download Response filed by defendants to plaintiff's notice of supplemental authority (Ninth Circuit decision in Honolulu/Maui cases). 07/18/2022 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authoirty filed by plaintiff (Ninth Circuit decision in Honolulu/Maui cases). 06/17/2022 Response Download Response filed by defendants to plaintiff's notice of supplemental authority (First Circuit decision in Rhode Island case). 05/25/2022 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority filed by District of Columbia (First Circuit decision in Rhode Island case). 05/19/2022 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority filed by District of Columbia (Fourth Circuit decision in Baltimore case). 03/01/2022 Response Download Response filed by defendants to attorney general's notice of supplemental authority (Boulder case). 02/15/2022 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority (Tenth Circuit affirmance of remand order in Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County) and request for a status conference filed by the District of Columbia. 01/20/2022 Response Download Response filed by defendants to plaintiff's notice of supplemental authority regarding federal-officer removal. 01/14/2022 Response Download Response filed by defendants to plaintiff's notice of supplemental authority (remand order in Delaware case). 01/11/2022 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority regarding federal-officer removal filed by plaintiff. 01/06/2022 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority filed by District of Columbia regarding remand order in Delaware's case. 09/17/2021 Response Download Response filed by defendants to District of Columbia's notice of supplemental authority regarding City of Hoboken v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 09/09/2021 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority filed by District of Columbia regarding City of Hoboken v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 04/15/2021 Response Download Response to defendants' notice of supplemental authority filed by plaintiffs. The District of Columbia argued that the Second Circuit’s opinion addressed a different issue than the issue before the court; that the Second Circuit expressly distinguished the “fleet” of climate cases in which federal courts had granted remand; and that D.C.’s case would be distinguishable in any event because it was based on a statutory consumer protection claim. 04/09/2021 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority filed by defendants. Fossil fuel company defendants filed notices about the Second Circuit's decision affirming dismissal of New York City's climate change case in cases where motions to remand are 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. 10/15/2020 Opposition Download Brief filed by defendants in opposition to District of Columbia's motion to remand. 08/17/2020 Motion Download Motion to remand filed by District of Columbia. 07/17/2020 Notice of Removal Download Notice of removal filed. Fossil Fuel Defendants Removed Three More Climate Cases to Federal Court. Fossil fuel companies removed a climate change-based consumer protection case brought by Washington, D.C. to federal court. The defendants asserted multiple grounds for removal: that the cases raise disputed and substantial federal questions, that the claims necessarily arise under federal common law, that the claims arise out of federal enclaves, that federal-officer removal applies, that jurisdiction is proper under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, that the case is removable under the Class Action Fairness Act, and that diversity citizenship creates removal jurisdiction. -
District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 06/25/2020 Complaint Download Complaint filed. D.C. Filed Suit Against Oil and Gas Companies Alleging Violations of Consumer Protection Law. The District of Columbia filed a lawsuit asserting claims under its Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) against oil and gas companies in D.C. Superior Court. The District alleged that the companies had engaged in “deceptive and unfair conduct” in violation of the CPPA by misleading consumers about “the central role their products play in causing climate change, one of the greatest threats facing humanity.” The complaint alleged that D.C. had had to develop a heat emergency plan to address an increased number of extreme heat days, that D.C. was experiencing “more frequent and extreme precipitation events and associated flooding,” and that impacts were particularly severe in low-income communities and communities of color. The District asked the court to enjoin the defendants from violating the CPPA and to order them to pay restitution or damages, civil penalties, and costs and attorney’s fees.