Description: Action by a commercial fishing industry trade group to hold fossil fuel companies liable for adverse climate change impacts to the ocean off the coasts of California and Oregonthat resulted in "prolonged closures" of Dungeness crab fisheries.
-
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations v. Chevron Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 12/14/2023 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Download Plaintiff filed notice of voluntary dismissal of entire case. Fishermen’s Federation Voluntarily Dismissed Climate Case Against Fossil Fuel Companies. On December 14, 2023, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations voluntarily dismissed without prejudice its climate change case against fossil fuel companies. The notice of voluntary dismissal was filed a month and a half after the federal district court for the Northern District of California concluded that the case could be removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act and denied the Federation’s motion to remand. 11/01/2023 Order Download Motion to remand denied. Federal Court “Reluctantly” Denied Remand in Fishermen Organization’s Climate Case Against Fossil Fuel Companies and Asked About Alternative Grounds to Decline Jurisdiction. The federal district court for the Northern District of California “reluctantly” denied a motion to remand the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations’ climate change case against fossil fuel companies. The organization alleged that its members had suffered financial losses due to climate change and stated that it was suing “in a representative capacity on behalf of its members and the west coast fishing community.” The court found that the suit was a state-law equivalent to a damages class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and was therefore removable under the Class Action Fairness Act. The court found that other grounds for removal were without merit. The court asked the parties to address two questions at a case management conference scheduled for December 1, 2023: (1) whether there could be another basis for declining to exercise jurisdiction, “considering either the current complaint or a possible amended complaint,” since, in the court’s view, “the case includes various claims under state law that are quite novel and that the state courts may be better suited to adjudicate,” and (2) whether the court should stay the case pending appeal, which the court said it was “tentatively inclined” to do. 08/28/2023 Reply Download Reply filed in support of motion for remand. 08/14/2023 Opposition Download Opposition filed by defendants to motion for remand. 07/18/2023 Motion Download Motion for remand filed. 06/06/2023 Order Download Stay lifted. 05/19/2023 Notice Download Notice filed of defendants' objection to remand of the action. 05/17/2023 Order Download Court issued order indicating it would remand case to state court, absent objection. 11/12/2021 Response Download Parties filed joint response to court's notice and request to vacate case management conference. 06/02/2021 Response Download Parties submitted joint response to court's notice and request to vacate case management conference. 11/30/2020 Notice Clerk's notice issued continuing case management conference. The court continued the case management conference scheduled for December 16 to June 9, 2021. The parties jointly requested that the conference be postponed until proceedings in the Supreme Court in City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c. and County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp. have concluded. (The defendants have not yet filed their petitions for writ of certiorari in those cases.) 11/25/2020 Response Download Parties filed joint response to court's notice and request to vacate case management conference. 08/22/2020 Notice Download Clerk's notice issued rescheduling case management conference. After the Ninth Circuit’s decisions on jurisdictional issues in the County of San Mateo and City of Oakland cases, the court initially scheduled a case management conference for August 26, 2020 but rescheduled the conference for December 16, 2020 after the parties submitted a joint request to vacate the case management conference given the defendants’ intent to file petitions for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s decisions. 08/19/2020 Response Download Parties filed joint response to court's notice and request to vacate case management conference. 08/10/2020 Notice Download Clerk's notice issued scheduling case management conference. 01/02/2019 Stipulation Download Joint stipulation to stay proceedings filed. The court signed a joint stipulation staying the proceedings pending final resolution of the appeals in City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c. and County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp. 12/24/2018 Order Download Order issued reassigning case to Honorable Vince Chhabria. 12/21/2018 Order Download Order of recusal issued Judge William H. Orrick. 12/18/2018 Order Download Motion to relate case to City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c. denied. 12/12/2018 Notice Download Notice of removal filed by defendants Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. -
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Inc. v. Chevron Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 11/14/2018 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Fishing Trade Group Sued Fossil Fuel Companies for Climate Change Damage. A commercial fishing industry trade group filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court seeking to hold fossil fuel companies liable for adverse climate change impacts to the ocean off the coasts of California and Oregon that resulted in “prolonged closures” of Dungeness crab fisheries. The plaintiff alleged that the companies had known for decades that use of their products could be “catastrophic” and that “only a narrow window existed” for action before consequences would be irreversible. The plaintiff asserted the companies took actions to obscure the harms and avoid regulation, while still acknowledging and planning for climate change’s consequences internally. The plaintiff contended that the companies’ actions prevented the development of alternatives that could have eased the transition to a less fossil fuel-dependent economy. The complaint contains five causes of action: nuisance, strict liability for failure to warn, strict liability for design defect, negligence, and negligent failure to warn. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, equitable relief including abatement of the nuisance, punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, and attorneys’ fees and costs.