City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c.

Filing Date: 2017
Case Categories:
Principal Laws:
State Law—Nuisance, Supremacy Clause
Description: Public nuisance actions brought by City of Oakland and City of San Francisco against fossil fuel companies.
  • Chevron Corp. v. City of Oakland
    Docket number(s): 20-1089
    Court/Admin Entity: U.S.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    06/14/2021 Order List Download Certiorari denied. Supreme Court Declined to Review Ninth Circuit Reversal of Denial of Remand in Oakland and San Francisco Climate Cases. On June 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court denied fossil fuel companies’ petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision reversing the district court’s 2018 denial of Oakland’s and San Francisco’s motions to remand their climate change nuisance cases to California state court. The petition had requested that the Court consider the questions of “[w]hether putative state-law tort claims alleging harm from global climate change are removable because they arise under federal law” and “[w]hether a plaintiff is barred from challenging removal on appeal after curing any jurisdictional defect and litigating the case to final judgment.” The cities’ renewed motion for remand is currently pending in the district court, with the cities arguing against the companies’ remaining grounds for removal: federal-officer removal, Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, enclave jurisdiction, and bankruptcy removal. The cities also have filed a motion to amend their complaints to withdraw federal common law public nuisance claims that they added after the district court denied remand.
    05/24/2021 Reply Download Reply brief filed by petitioners. Briefing was completed on the fossil fuel companies’ petition for writ of certiorari, and briefs were distributed for the justices’ June 10, 2021 conference.
    05/10/2021 Brief Download Brief filed by respondents in opposition to petition for a writ of certiorari. In their brief opposing certiorari, the cities framed the questions presented as “[w]hether a California state law public nuisance claim alleging wrongful and deceptive promotion of hazardous consumer goods ‘arises under’ a congressionally displaced body of federal common law regarding interstate air pollution for purposes of removal jurisdiction” and “[w]hether respondents waived their right to appeal an erroneously denied remand motion by filing an amended complaint to conform to that erroneous ruling while expressly preserving their appellate rights, and then opposing petitioners’ motion to dismiss that amended complaint.” The cities argued that no existing federal common law “governs” their claims under the California representative public nuisance law, and that the Ninth Circuit’s application of the well-pleaded complaint rule did not warrant review. The cities also contended that the Ninth Circuit’s application of the Court’s precedent concerning whether post-removal amendment of complaints waived objections did not warrant review. In addition, the cities argued that the questions were not “certworthy” because they “arise in only a tiny category of cases” and because the petition was a “poor vehicle” to review the questions since there had been no final determination on the jurisdictional issue raised.
    03/11/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by American Petroleum Institute as amicus curiae supporting petitioners.
    03/11/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America as amicus curiae in support of petitioners.
    03/11/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by Indiana and 16 other states as amici curiae in support of petitioners.
    03/11/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by National Association of Manufacturers as amicus curiae in support of petitioners.
    02/22/2021 Order Motion to extend time to file response granted. In the Supreme Court, the cities’ response to the certiorari petition is due on May 10, 2021, after they requested an extension of the deadline.
    01/08/2021 Petition for Writ of Certiorari Download Petition for writ of certiorari filed by defendants. Certiorari Petition Filed in San Francisco and Oakland Case. On January 8, 2021, fossil fuel companies filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s May 2020 reversal of the district court’s 2018 denial of Oakland’s and San Francisco’s motions to remand their climate change nuisance cases to California state court. The petition requested that the Court consider the questions of “[w]hether putative state-law tort claims alleging harm from global climate change are removable because they arise under federal law” and “[w]hether a plaintiff is barred from challenging removal on appeal after curing any jurisdictional defect and litigating the case to final judgment.” (The cities added federal nuisance claims to their complaints after the district court denied the remand motions.)
  • City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c.
    Docket number(s): 3:17-cv-06011
    Court/Admin Entity: N.D. Cal.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    10/24/2022 Order Download Renewed motion to remand granted and personal jurisdiction dismissal order vacated. California Federal Court Concluded that Ninth Circuit Precedent Dictated Remand of Oakland and San Francisco Climate Cases. In the climate change public nuisance cases brought by Oakland and San Francisco, the federal district court for the Northern District of California rejected the fossil fuel company defendants’ remaining grounds for removal of the cases to federal court. The district court first concluded that it was bound by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ rulings in the County of San Mateo and Honolulu cases that the connection between the defendants’ alleged conduct on the Outer Continental Shelf and the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries was too attenuated to give rise to jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, even if the district court itself would have found differently if “writing on a clean slate,” given the plaintiffs’ “sustained emphasis and attacks on production and sale of fossil fuels and given the central role of the outer Continental Shelf in America’s oil production.” In addition, the district court found that Ninth Circuit precedent in other climate change cases foreclosed federal enclave jurisdiction and jurisdiction under the federal-officer removal statute. The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that there was federal jurisdiction because the plaintiffs’ claims necessarily raised substantial First Amendment issues. The court vacated its earlier dismissal of four defendants on personal jurisdiction grounds, writing that “both sides deserve a clean slate in state court” but that the vacatur should not be considered as changing the court’s view of the personal jurisdiction issue.
    10/20/2022 Notice Download Notice filed by defendants regarding developments in Boulder County case.
    10/20/2022 Response Download Response filed by defendants to notice of recent decision (remand decision in Annapolis/Anne Arundel County cases).
    10/18/2022 Response Download Response filed by plaintiffs to defendants' notice regarding developments in Boulder County case.
    10/13/2022 Response Download Response filed by defendants to plaintiffs' submission regarding Honolulu and Maui cases.
    10/03/2022 Notice Download Notice of recent decision filed by People of the State of California (remand decision in Annapolis/Anne Arundel County cases).
    09/06/2022 Response Download Defendants filed response to notice of recent decision (Third Circuit's decision in Hoboken/Delaware cases).
    08/30/2022 Reply Download Reply filed by defendants in further support of motion for entry of partial final judgment.
    08/25/2022 Notice Download Oakland and San Francisco filed notice of recent decision (Third Circuit opinion in Hoboken/Delaware cases).
    08/16/2022 Opposition Download Opposition filed to defendants' motion for entry of partial final judgment.
    08/11/2022 Reply Download Supplemental reply filed in support of renewed motion to remand.
    07/21/2022 Brief Download Supplemental brief filed by defendants in opposition to plaintiffs' renewed motion to remand.
    07/21/2022 Motion Download Motion for entry of partial final judgment filed by defendants.
    07/12/2022 Notice Download Notice of Ninth Circuit developments filed by defendants (decisions in Honolulu and County of San Mateo cases).
    06/16/2022 Brief Download Supplemental brief filed by the People in support of renewed motion to remand.
    05/19/2022 Statement Download Defendants filed statement regarding May 12 status conference.
    05/12/2022 Order Status conference held and parties directed to meet and confer regarding supplemental briefing on motion to remand in light of recent decisions in similar actions.
    05/05/2022 Status Report Download Joint status report filed.
    08/04/2021 Order Download Proceedings stayed pending ruling by Ninth Circuit in County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp. On August 4, 2021, the federal district court for the Northern District of California stayed proceedings in Oakland’s and San Francisco’s cases, in which a renewed motion to remand and motion to amend are pending. The court directed counsel to inform the court when the Ninth Circuit issues a ruling in County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., in which the Ninth Circuit is considering the fossil fuel companies’ additional grounds for removal on remand from the Supreme Court’s ruling that the scope of appellate review of remand orders extends beyond federal-officer removal when federal-officer removal is one of the removing defendants’ bases for removal.
    07/09/2021 Statement Download Joint case management statement filed. A fully briefed renewed motion to remand is pending before the federal district court for the Northern District of California. The parties submitted a joint case management statement on July 9 in which they indicated they were ready to proceed with the remand motion if the court was inclined to do so, but that they would understand if the district court preferred to wait until the Ninth Circuit ruled on the issues of remand under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and federal enclave jurisdiction. The defendants believed it would be reasonable to proceed on the remand motion because two other grounds for removal were at issue in this case—(1) Grable jurisdiction because Oakland and San Francisco’s misrepresentation claims “necessarily incorporate affirmative federal constitutional elements imposed by the First Amendment” and (2) a “more robust” basis for federal-officer removal than the Ninth Circuit considered in rejecting federal-officer removal in San Mateo. The cities took the position that the Ninth Circuit’s previous decisions in San Mateo and Oakland bound the district court on these issues but did not object to proceeding.
    06/23/2021 Notice Download Notice of voluntary dismissal of third-party complaints against Equinor ASA filed. On June 23, 2021, Chevron Corporation filed notice in the district court of its voluntary dismissal of third-party complaints against the energy company Equinor ASA (formerly Statoil ASA). Chevron filed the third-party complaint in December 2017 against the company—of which the Norwegian State is majority stakeholder—for indemnity and contribution. The third-party complaint asserted that while the plaintiffs’ claims were meritless, Statoil, “as well as potentially the many other sovereign governments that use and promote fossil fuels,” must be joined as third-party defendants.
    05/17/2021 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority filed by Chevron Corporation regarding Supreme Court's decision in Baltimore case.
    05/12/2021 Not Available Download Joint case management statement filed by the parties.
    04/22/2021 Response Download Response filed by the People to defendants' notice of supplemental authority. Oakland and San Francisco argued that the Second Circuit opinion did not address removal jurisdiction and that the Second Circuit’s preemption analysis was not relevant to the claims in these cases, which the plaintiffs characterized as based on allegations of “wrongful promotion” of fossil fuels.
    04/08/2021 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, and federal enclave jurisdiction. The defendants also argued that the Second Circuit’s decision made it more likely that the Supreme Court would grant certiorari.
    04/02/2021 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority filed by plaintiffs regarding District of Minnesota's remand order.
    03/18/2021 Reply Download Reply filed by plaintiffs in support of motion for leave to amend.
    03/18/2021 Reply Download Reply filed by plaintiffs in support of renewed motion to remand.
    02/25/2021 Opposition Download Opposition filed by defendants to plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their first amended complaint. In response to the motion to amend, the defendants argued that it was unnecessary for the plaintiffs to amend their complaints at this time, and that “one is left to wonder” whether the plaintiffs were seeking to derail Supreme Court review of one of the questions presented in the defendants’ January petition for writ of certiorari: whether a plaintiff is barred from challenging removal on appeal after curing any jurisdictional defect (in this case, by adding a federal claim after the district court denied remand) and litigating the case to final judgment.
    02/25/2021 Opposition Download Opposition filed by defendants to plaintiffs' renewed motion to remand. In Oakland and San Francisco’s cases, the defendants filed their oppositions to the cities’ renewed motion to remand and their motion for leave to amend their complaints to remove federal claims. In their opposition to remand, the defendants contended that the action was removable under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the federal-officer removal statute and also because the plaintiffs’ claims arose on federal enclaves and because the claims necessarily raised disputed and substantial freedom of speech issues.
    01/28/2021 Motion Download Motion for leave to amend filed by plaintiffs. On January 28, 2021, Oakland and San Francisco filed a motion in the federal district court for the Northern District of California to amend their complaints to withdraw claims under the federal common law of public nuisance so that the sole remaining claims would be alleged violation of California’s representative public nuisance law.
    01/28/2021 Motion Download Renewed motion to remand filed. The cities filed a renewed motion to remand in which they contended that the fossil fuel companies’ remaining grounds for removal after the Ninth Circuit’s May 2020 decision—federal-officer removal, Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, enclave jurisdiction, and bankruptcy removal—were not viable.
    12/16/2020 Notice Download Case management conference held and briefing schedule/plan set for motions to remand and amend. The federal district court for the Northern District of California held a case management conference in City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c. on December 16, 2020 at which the parties agreed to the court’s proposal that the parties brief Oakland and San Francisco’s renewed motion to remand and motion to amend the complaint to remove federal common law claims, with the renewed motion to remand due by January 28, 2021. The court indicated that after briefing on the remand motion is complete, it will consider whether to defer its ruling on the motion pending the Supreme Court’s decision in the Baltimore case. Personal jurisdiction issues would be briefed after the court’s decision on the remand motion.
    11/13/2020 Notice Clerk's notice issue. On November 13, the court continued a case management conference scheduled for November 19 to December 16.
    11/10/2020 Statement Download Joint case management statement filed by parties. The parties submitted a joint case management statement articulating their positions on how the case should proceed after the Ninth Circuit’s remand of the case (November 10). The plaintiffs contended that no further stay of the cases was warranted and that there should be briefing on their motion to remand, as well as on the issues of staying the action, the plaintiffs’ amending their complaint to withdraw federal common law claims, and the plaintiffs’ planned motion to vacate the court’s ruling on personal jurisdiction. The defendants argued that the court should stay the case until the Supreme Court determines whether to grant forthcoming petitions for writ of certiorari in this case and County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.
    11/04/2020 Notice Case management conference continued to November 19, 2020.
    10/06/2020 Notice Case management conference set for November 12, 2020.
    12/18/2018 Order Download Motion to relate cases denied.
    12/14/2018 Opposition Download Opposition to defendant's motion to relate filed by plaintiff Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Inc.
    12/13/2018 Motion Download Administrative motion to relate cases filed by defendants.
    08/24/2018 Notice of Appeal Download Notice of appeal filed by plaintiffs. San Francisco and Oakland Appealed Dismissal of Climate Change Nuisance Cases as Well as Denial of Remand. On August 24, 2018, San Francisco and Oakland filed notices of appeal of district court orders denying the cities’ motions to remand their climate change nuisance cases, dismissing the cases for failure to state a claim, and dismissing the cases against four oil and gas companies for lack of personal jurisdiction.
    07/27/2018 Judgment Download Judgment entered in favor of defendants.
    07/27/2018 Order Download Motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction granted. A Month After Rejecting Oakland and San Francisco’s Climate Change Public Nuisance Claims, California Federal Court Also Concluded It Had No Personal Jurisdiction Over Four of Five Defendants. On July 27, 2018, the federal district court for the Northern District of California granted the motions of four oil and gas companies for dismissal on personal jurisdiction grounds of Oakland’s and San Francisco’s climate change public nuisance lawsuits. The court previously ruled in a June 25 order that the actions should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. In its July 27 order, the court concluded that it could not exercise specific jurisdiction over the four companies, none of which was a resident of California, because it was “manifest that global warming would have continued in the absence of all California-related activities of defendants.” Because the plaintiffs “failed to adequately link” the four companies’ alleged California activities to the alleged climate change harms such as sea level rise, they did not satisfy the “but-for” causation standard for specific jurisdiction.
    07/02/2018 Statement Download Joint statement filed by parties re pending 12(b)(2) motions.
    06/25/2018 Order Download Defendants' motion to dismiss granted. California Federal Court Dismissed Oakland and San Francisco’s Climate Change Nuisance Lawsuits. On June 25, 2018, the federal district court for the Northern District of California dismissed the public nuisance lawsuits brought by Oakland and San Francisco seeking to hold five fossil fuel companies liable for climate change harms. The court—which previously ruled that any nuisance claim necessarily would arise under federal, not state, common law—rejected the cities’ attempt to differentiate their federal nuisance claims from claims based on greenhouse gas emissions previously found to be displaced by the Clean Air Act by the Supreme Court (in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut (AEP)) and Ninth Circuit (in Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp. (Kivalina)). The district court held that AEP and Kivalina’s displacement rule would apply to the cities’ claims even though the claims were based not on the defendants’ own greenhouse gas emissions but on their sales of fossil fuels to other parties that will eventually burn the fuels. The district court stated: “If an oil producer cannot be sued under the federal common law for their own emissions, a fortiori they cannot be sued for someone else’s.” The district court said the other distinction offered by the plaintiffs to differentiate their claims from those found to be displaced in AEP and Kivalina—that the defendants’ actions and the resulting emissions occurred outside the U.S.—placed the cities’ claims outside the proper reach of the courts. The court said that while the Clean Air Act did not reach foreign emissions and thus would not necessarily displace plaintiffs’ claims, such nuisance claims were “foreclosed by the need for federal courts to defer to the legislative and executive branches when it comes to such international problems.” The court stated: “This order fully accepts the vast scientific consensus that the combustion of fossil fuels has materially increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, which in turn has increased the median temperature of the planet and accelerated sea level rise. But questions of how to appropriately balance these worldwide negatives against the worldwide positives of the energy itself, and of how to allocate the pluses and minuses among the nations of the world, demand the expertise of our environmental agencies, our diplomats, our Executive, and at least the Senate. Nuisance suits in various United States judicial districts regarding conduct worldwide are far less likely to solve the problem and, indeed, could interfere with reaching a worldwide consensus.” In short, the court stated, “[t]he problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case.”
    06/25/2018 Order Download Order issued requesting joint statement on pending personal jurisdiction motions. After dismissing Oakland's and San Francisco's actions, the court issued a request for the parties to submit a joint statement regarding whether it was still necessary to addressing the pending and recently narrowed motions to dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds. The court said it remained willing to decide the personal jurisdiction issue but that counsel might prefer to postpone such a ruling until after appellate review of the dismissal and no-remand orders.
    06/25/2018 Stipulation Download Stipulation and order signed. On June 20, BP p.l.c. and the plaintiffs filed a stipulation to end jurisdictional discovery. BP withdrew three declarations concerning specific jurisdiction but said it would continue to pursue its personal jurisdictional arguments—that in-forum activities were not a “but-for” cause of alleged injuries and that exercise of personal jurisdiction was unreasonable under the circumstances—based on the allegations of the amended complaints. Just before the court dismissed the actions on June 25, it also signed off on the BP stipulation.
    06/23/2018 Not Available Download Royal Dutch Shell PLC waiver of service filed by plaintiffs.
    06/20/2018 Memorandum Download Amended memorandum of points and authorities filed by BP p.l.c. in support of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (to remove references to withdrawn declarations).
    06/20/2018 Reply Download Amended reply memorandum filed by BP p.l.c. in support of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (to remove references to withdrawn declarations).
    06/06/2018 Stipulation Download Stipulation and order signed. Fossil Fuel Companies Waived Personal Jurisdiction Arguments to Avoid Discovery in Oakland and San Francisco Climate Cases. ConocoPhillips Company and Royal Dutch Shell plc agreed to withdraw two of their arguments supporting their motions to dismiss Oakland and San Francisco’s climate change public nuisance cases for lack of personal jurisdiction. ConocoPhillips said it would forgo asserting “Corporate Separateness” (concerning whether ConocoPhillips’s subsidiaries were its agents for purposes of attributing their California contacts to ConocoPhillips) and “Reasonableness” (concerning whether exercise of personal jurisdiction was unreasonable under the circumstances) arguments against personal jurisdiction to avoid the need for jurisdictional discovery and to “speed a resolution” of the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Royal Dutch Shell plc also agreed to withdraw its arguments against personal jurisdiction for which jurisdictional discovery had been ordered, and also said it would waive service of summons to moot its motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process. Both companies will continue to assert that personal jurisdiction does not exist because their alleged contacts with the jurisdiction are not the but-for cause of the cities’ alleged harms. The court signed off on the parties’ stipulations on June 6.
    06/06/2018 Stipulation Download Stipulation and order signed.
    05/31/2018 Brief Download Supplemental brief submitted by defendants. In their supplemental brief, the defendants asserted that “well-established nuisance law” required that the court weigh the utility of fossil fuel extraction against alleged harms to determine if the defendants’ conduct was unreasonable; the defendants also argued that engaging in such a balancing would require “second-guessing Congress.”
    05/31/2018 Brief Download Supplemental brief filed by plaintiffs. In their supplemental brief, the plaintiffs argued that the court was not required to balance the utility of the conduct because they sought monetary relief—an abatement fund—and not to enjoin the defendants’ conduct.
    05/30/2018 Response Download Plaintiffs submitted response to order re service of process.
    05/30/2018 Statement Download Statement submitted by Royal Dutch Shell plc re effect of waiver of service of process per court's order re service of process.
    05/29/2018 Order Download Order re service of process issued.
    05/28/2018 Statement Download Statement submitted by Royal Dutch Shell plc re service of process per court's May 25, 2018 order.
    05/25/2018 Order Download Plaintiffs' requests for jurisdictional discovery granted in part and denied in part and supplemental briefing ordered. Court Ordered Post-Argument Briefing. After the federal district court for the Northern District of California held oral argument on May 24, 2018 on fossil fuel companies’ motions to dismiss the climate change nuisance lawsuits brought by Oakland and San Francisco, the court issued a written order granting the cities’ requests to take jurisdictional discovery as to three of the defendants (BP p.l.c., ConocoPhillips Company, and Royal Dutch Shell plc) as well as concerning the nature of the relationship between Shell Oil Company and Royal Dutch Shell. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery as to Exxon Mobil Corporation and ordered supplemental briefing on the jurisdictional issues, with briefing to be completed by August 16. In addition, the court ordered the parties to submit briefs by May 31 on “the extent to which adjudication of plaintiffs’ federal common law nuisance claims would require the undersigned judge to consider the utility of defendants’ alleged conduct.”
    05/23/2018 Notice Download Notice filed by Chevron Corporation of pendency of other action or proceeding. Chevron Corporation filed a notice of the pendency of King County's "materially similar action" against the same five defendants in Washington State court. Chevron said it anticipated removing the action to federal district court and therefore had not yet determined whether coordination between the King County proceeding and these cases was necessary.
    05/21/2018 Order Download Plaintiffs' motion for leave to respond to U.S. amicus brief granted.
    05/18/2018 Motion Download Plaintiffs submitted motion for leave to respond to U.S. amicus brief.
    05/18/2018 Motion Download Motion for leave to respond to United States' amicus brief and memorandum of points and authorities filed by plaintiffs.
    05/16/2018 Reply Download Reply filed by Royal Dutch Shell plc in support of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient service of process, and failure to state a claim (correction of a May 10 filing).
    05/10/2018 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by United States in support of dismissal. United States Weighed in to Support Dismissal. On May 10, 2018, the United States filed an amicus brief in support of dismissal of Oakland and San Francisco's case. Its brief argued that federal common law of nuisance afforded no relief to the cities; that federal law (the Clean Air Act, federal authorities relating to international climate change, and federal statutes governing production of fossil fuels) displaced any such nuisance claims; and that the claims violated separation of powers principles. The United States asserted that it has “strong economic and national security interests in promoting the development of fossil fuels, among other energy resources,” and that the lawsuit threatened to interfere with the U.S.’s “ongoing attempts to address the impacts of climate change, both domestically and internationally.
    05/10/2018 Reply Download Reply submitted by BP p.l.c. in support of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
    05/10/2018 Reply Download Reply submitted by ConocoPhillips in support of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
    05/10/2018 Reply Download Reply filed by defendants in support of motion to dismiss.
    05/10/2018 Reply Download Reply filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation in support of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
    05/08/2018 Order Download Order issued granting California, New Jersey, and Washington's motion for leave to file an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs' opposition to motion to dismiss.
    05/03/2018 Amicus Motion Download Motion filed by California, New Jersey, and Washington to file amicus brief in support of plaintiffs' opposition to motion to dismiss. Three States Filed Amicus Brief Opposing Dismissal of Oakland and San Francisco Climate Change Nuisance Suits. The federal district court for the Northern District of California granted California, New Jersey, and Washington’s request to submit an amicus brief in support of Oakland and San Francisco’s opposition to fossil fuel companies’ motion to dismiss their climate change public nuisance suit. The three states characterized their brief as focusing on “a subset of issues where our States are in a position to offer a fuller picture of the case law and relevant statutes and regulations.” First, they contested the position of the fossil fuel companies and other amici states advocating for dismissal of the lawsuits that Oakland and San Francisco’s complaints asserted non-justiciable political questions. They also said that the complaints did not threaten state climate programs or jeopardize cooperative federalism. They also argued that the public nuisance alleged by Oakland and San Francisco was not authorized by law, that the Clean Air Act did not displace the public nuisance claims, and that the relief sought by the cities would not constitute extraterritorial regulation in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause.
    05/03/2018 Response Download Response submitted by plaintiffs in opposition to BP p.l.c.'s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
    05/03/2018 Response Download Response submitted in opposition to ConocoPhillips's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
    05/03/2018 Response Download Response submitted in opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss.
    05/03/2018 Response Download Response submitted in opposition to Exxon Mobil Corporation's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
    05/03/2018 Response Download Response submitted in opposition to Royal Dutch Shell plc's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
    04/30/2018 Order Download States' motion for leave to file amicus brief granted.
    04/24/2018 Notice Download Second notice re briefing on motion to dismiss issued by court. On April 24, 2018, the court asked the parties to address the applicability of the Supreme Court’s decision on that day in Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC. The Court held foreign corporations could not be defendants under the Alien Tort Statute.
    04/19/2018 Amicus Motion Download Amicus motion filed by Indiana and 14 other states. On April 19, 2018, the court received an amicus motion on behalf of 15 states, led by Indiana, that argued that “[t]o permit federal adjudication of claims for abatement fund remedies would disrupt carefully calibrated state regulatory schemes devised by politically accountable officials.” The states argued that the plaintiffs’ claims were non-justiciable political questions that jeopardized cooperative federalism and that the case could constitute extraterritorial regulation in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. They also echoed the argument that federal statutes displaced common law claims.
    04/19/2018 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss first amended complaints for lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient service of process, and failure to state a claim filed by Royal Dutch Shell plc.
    04/19/2018 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss first amended complaints for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation.
    04/19/2018 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss first amended complaints for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by ConocoPhillips.
    04/19/2018 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss first amended complaints filed by defendants. Fossil Fuel Companies Sought to Dismiss Oakland and San Francisco Amended Complaints; Hearing Scheduled for May 24. On April 19, 2018, the fossil fuel company defendants in Oakland and San Francisco’s public nuisance climate change lawsuits moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaints. All of the defendants joined in a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, in which they reiterated arguments from their March 20 motion to dismiss the original complaint: that federal common law claims were either displaced by federal statutes or were “plainly improper”; that the plaintiffs failed to allege the elements of a nuisance claim; and that even if the plaintiffs pleaded a viable claim, judicial resolution would be inappropriate because it would violate separation of powers. Each defendant other than Chevron Corporation also filed a new motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and Royal Dutch Shell plc (Shell) again also sought dismissal on the basis of insufficient service of process. The defendants addressed four questions that the court on March 27 had requested be addressed in the briefing on the motion to dismiss. They said they were aware of no cases sustaining a nuisance theory of liability based on the otherwise lawful sale of a product where the seller finance or sponsored research or advertising intended to cast doubt on studies showing that use of the product was harmful. They also told the court that “no global-warming-based nuisance claim has ever made it past the pleadings,” argued that the plaintiffs sought to hold them liable for speech “plainly immunized” by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and asserted that the plaintiffs’ “expansive theory of liability has no limiting principle.” The plaintiffs’ response to the motions to dismiss was due by May 3, and defendants’ replies were due by May 10. The court had also set a deadline of May 10 for the United States to submit an amicus brief if it wished to do so. A hearing on the motions to dismiss was scheduled for May 24.
    04/19/2018 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss first amended complaints for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by BP p.l.c.
    04/18/2018 Motion Download Motion filed by United States for extension of time to consider whether to participate as amicus curiae.
    04/18/2018 Order Download Order issued setting deadline of May 10, 2018 for United States to file amicus brief.
    04/04/2018 Complaint Download Redlined first amended complaint filed by plaintiffs (San Francisco).
    04/04/2018 Complaint Download Redlined first amended complaint filed by plaintiffs (Oakland).
    04/04/2018 Order Download Order issued setting schedules for motions to dismiss amended complaint. The court deemed the March 20 motions to dismiss withdrawn, and new motions to dismiss the amended complaints are due on April 19. Briefing on the motions to dismiss is to be completed by May 10, and a hearing was scheduled for May 24.
    04/04/2018 Response Download Response to March 21, 2018 notice to defendants re tutorial filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation. In response to the court's request after the March 21 climate change tutorial that the non-presenting defendants explain any disagreements with Chevron's counsel's presentation, Exxon Mobil Corporation set forth a seven-point list of statements regarding climate change risk, the contribution of human activities to greenhouse gas emissions, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—and stated its position that the statements were not judicial admissions. ExxonMobil called the IPCC’s reports “a reference point for understanding how scientific knowledge and confidence have evolved over the past 30 years and contain a wide range of data and potential outcomes” but that it did not adopt every statement made in the IPCC reports. Exxon also said it agreed with Chevron’s counsel that the resolution of climate science issues would not be determinative in the case for the reasons set forth in the motion to dismiss.
    04/04/2018 Response Download Response to court's March 21, 2018 notice defendants re tutorial filed by BP p.l.c. In response to the court's request after the March 21 climate change tutorial that the non-presenting defendants explain any disagreements with Chevron's counsel's presentation, BP p.l.c. indicated it did not disagree with Chevron’s counsel’s presentation and that it reserved the right to advance positions supported by fact and scientific/expert evidence in support of its defense.
    04/04/2018 Response Download Responsive statement filed by Royal Dutch Shell plc to court's March 21, 2018 order. In response to the court's request after the March 21 climate change tutorial that the non-presenting defendants explain any disagreements with Chevron's counsel's presentation, Royal Dutch Shell plc asserted that it did not “necessarily adopt each statement contained in the various [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] reports” but agreed that they were an “appropriate source of information for the court to consider to further its understanding of the timeline and science surrounding climate change.”
    04/04/2018 Response Download Plaintiffs submitted response to notice re amended complaints summarizing changes. Also on April 4, Oakland and San Francisco submitted redlines showing the differences between their original complaints and the amended complaints filed on April 3, which added a federal nuisance cause of action. In their summary of additions to the complaints, the cities said they also had added, among other things, additional causation allegations based on a 2014 study that set forth the amount of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere that is attributable to each defendant’s production of fossil fuels. The plaintiffs also said the amended complaint contained additional allegations regarding sea level rise, expressly disavowed claims based on lobbying activities, and removed allegations regarding the “Global Climate Science Communications Team” to avoid “unnecessary debates” regarding whether the group was “strictly focused on lobbying.”
    04/04/2018 Response Download Response filed by ConocoPhillips Company to court's notice to defendants re March 21, 2018 tutorial. In response to the court's request after the March 21 climate change tutorial that the non-presenting defendants explain any disagreements with Chevron's counsel's presentation, ConocoPhillips Company said it did not conduct research on global warming and climate change science but deferred to the scientific community’s consensus as reflected in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's science assessments, which it understood to be the basis of Chevron’s presentation.
    04/03/2018 Complaint Download First amended complaint filed. On April 3, the plaintiffs filed first amended complaints, which assert nuisance claims under both federal and California law.
    04/03/2018 Order Download Order issued requiring plaintiffs to submit a statement summarizing the additions and subtractions contained in the amended complaints.
    03/30/2018 Notice Download Plaintiffs filed notice of intent to amend complaints.
    03/28/2018 Response Download Response submitted by defendants to court's request for comment on handling of Shell's motion to dismiss based on insufficient service of process.
    03/28/2018 Response Download Response submitted by plaintiffs to court's request for comment on handling of Shell's motion to dismiss based on insufficient service of process.
    03/27/2018 Notice Download Notice re briefing on motion to dismiss issued by court. On March 27, the court issued a notice directing the parties to address four issues in the remainder of the briefing on the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: (1) all state and federal court decisions sustaining and rejecting a nuisance theory of liability “based on the otherwise lawful sale of a product where the seller financed and/or sponsored research or advertising intended to cast doubt on studies showing that use of the product would harm public health or the environment at large”; (2) all state and federal court decisions addressing a nuisance theory of liability in the context of global warming; (3) the extent to which the Noerr-Pennington doctrine (pursuant to which antitrust violations cannot be predicated on attempts to influence public officials or the passage or enforcement of laws) may apply; and (4) if the plaintiffs’ theory of liability based on questioning or sponsoring research to question global warming science is correct, why everyone involved in supplying carbon-based fuels or otherwise involved in increasing carbon dioxide would not be liable if they questioned the science or sponsored research intending to question it.
    03/27/2018 Statement Download Special statement submitted by amici curiae Viscount Monckton of Brenchley et al. in reply to plaintiffs' response to motion to file amici curiae brief.
    03/23/2018 Exhibit Download Plaintiffs submitted climate change science tutorial presentation materials (exhibit 4: presentation on answers to Judge Alsup’s questions).
    03/23/2018 Exhibit Download Plaintiffs submitted climate change science tutorial presentation materials (exhibit 5: presentation on “Understanding how carbon dioxide emissions from human activity contribute to global climate change”).
    03/23/2018 Exhibit Download Plaintiffs submitted climate change science tutorial presentation materials (exhibit 6: presentation on Fourth National Climate Assessment).
    03/23/2018 Exhibit Download Plaintiffs submitted climate change science tutorial presentation materials (exhibit 7: presentation on sea level rise).
    03/23/2018 Exhibit Download Plaintiffs submitted climate change science tutorial presentation materials (exhibit 8: presentation on history of climate change).
    03/23/2018 Exhibit Download Plaintiffs submitted climate change science tutorial presentation materials (exhibit 9: Nature paper requested by Judge Alsup). At the tutorial, Judge Alsup requested, and the plaintiffs later provided, a copy of a paper published in 1992 in Nature on “Seasonal and interannual variations in atmospheric oxygen and implications for the global carbon cycle.”
    03/23/2018 Notice Download Plaintiffs submitted climate change science tutorial presentation materials (notice and exhibits 1-3: curricula vitae of three presenters).
    03/23/2018 Order Download Amicus motion of Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council denied. The court denied a third amicus motion by the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council because the motion was submitted after the start of the tutorial and the parties did not have an opportunity to address it.
    03/23/2018 Order Download Court granted motion by Happer et al. for leave to submit presentation. The court accepted two sets of amicus materials that it received before the tutorial. One was an amicus brief submitted by individuals who described themselves as “an international team of scientific researchers concerned that scientific questions should be answered scientifically, rationally, dispassionately and logically, who have been investigating climate change for up to 12 years, and have intensively studied the question how much global warming we may cause.” Although the motion’s heading indicated it was submitted in support of the defendants, the body of the motion said that it was submitted not to support any party but to answer the court’s question about the “main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth.” The second amicus material accepted by the court was a presentation submitted by three professors, William Happer, Steven E. Koonin, and Richard S. Lindzen. Their presentation included a section comprising “a tutorial overview of climate science, covering the most essential concepts and results and highlighting fundamental problems with the claimed scientific ‘consensus,’” and also a section answering the court’s eight questions.
    03/23/2018 Order Download Court granted motion by Viscount Monckton of Brenchley et al. for leave to file an amici curiae brief.
    03/23/2018 Request Download Request for comment issued by court regarding handling of Shell's motion to dismiss based on insufficient service of process. When the court asked the parties whether it should resolve Shell’s motion challenging service before addressing the other motions and issues, both the cities and the defendants responded that doing so was not warranted.
    03/21/2018 Amicus Motion Download Motion for acceptance of submission as amicus curiae filed by Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council.
    03/21/2018 Notice Download Court issued notice to defendants re tutorial. At the tutorial, three scientists presented on behalf of Oakland and San Francisco. An attorney for Chevron Corporation, the only defendant that did not contest personal jurisdiction, presented on behalf of the defendants. After the tutorial, the court issued a notice directing the other four defendants to “submit a statement explaining any disagreements with the statements” of Chevron’s counsel at the tutorial.
    03/21/2018 Notice Download Climate change tutorial presentation slides submitted by Chevron Corp.
    03/21/2018 Notice Download Court issued notice to defendants re tutorial. After the tutorial on climate change science, the court issued a notice directing the other four defendants to “submit a statement explaining any disagreements with the statements” of Chevron’s counsel at the tutorial.
    03/20/2018 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss filed by all defendants. Fossil Fuel Companies Asked Federal Court to Dismiss Oakland and San Francisco Climate Change Nuisance Lawsuits. On the eve of a climate change tutorial requested by a federal judge in California, fossil fuel companies filed motions to dismiss the nuisance lawsuits brought by San Francisco and Oakland. The five named defendants joined in a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. First, they argued that Congress had displaced federal common law claims based on domestic activities, whether those activities involved combustion of fossil fuels (in which case the Clean Air Act displaced federal common law) or production and promotion of fossil fuels (in which case “many federal statutes … expressly regulate (and, in fact, encourage) such conduct)). The defendants also argued that federal common law principles would not support recognition of a claim based on the defendants’ foreign activities. Second, the fossil fuel companies argued that elements of a federal common law claim for public nuisance were absent. The defendants asserted (1) that the plaintiffs had not alleged and could not allege that the defendants’ conduct was unauthorized by law; (2) that it was undisputed that the defendants did not control the fossil fuels at the time of the alleged creation of the nuisance (i.e., the time of combustion); (3) that the complaint’s allegations did not establish causation, since the claims depended “on an attenuated causal chain including billions of intervening third parties—i.e., fossil fuel users like Plaintiffs themselves—and complex environmental phenomena occurring worldwide over many decades”; and (4) that the damages sought by the plaintiffs in the form of an “abatement fund” could not be awarded because plaintiffs had not alleged actual harm, only “speculative future harms that may never eventuate.” The defendants also argued that damages would violate the defendants’ due process and First Amendment rights. Finally, the defendants asserted that judicial relief would violate separation of powers by invading the executive branch’s authority to conduct foreign affairs and legislative authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce.
    03/20/2018 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by ConocoPhillips Company. Four of the defendants filed separate motions to dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds, arguing that the court could not exercise either general jurisdiction over the companies—two of which were non-U.S. companies and two of which were headquartered in Texas and incorporated in other states (one in New Jersey, one in Delaware)—or specific jurisdiction based on the companies’ alleged activities in and contacts with California. Royal Dutch Shell plc also asserted that the complaint should be dismissed against it for insufficient service of process.
    03/20/2018 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation.
    03/20/2018 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by BP p.l.c.
    03/20/2018 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient service of process, and failure to state a claim filed by Royal Dutch Shell plc.
    03/20/2018 Response Download Response filed by Happer, Koonin, and Lindzen to court's request for information re amicus curiae materials.
    03/20/2018 Response Download Responses filed by Viscount Monckton of Brenchley et al. to court's request for information re amicus curiae materials.
    03/20/2018 Response Download Plaintiffs filed response to motions to file amicus curiae brief and tutorial presentation and statement of nonopposition.
    03/20/2018 Stipulation Download Stipulation and order issued regarding formatting for briefing of motions to dismiss.
    03/19/2018 Motion Download Administrative motion for leave to submit presentation in response to the court's tutorial questions filed by William Happer, Steven E. Koonin, and Richard S. Lindzen.
    03/19/2018 Not Available Download Presentation filed as Exhibit A to motion by William Happer, Steven E. Koonin, and Richard S. Lindzen.
    03/19/2018 Request Download Court requested information re amicus curiae materials.
    03/16/2018 Amicus Brief Download Proposed amicus brief in support of defendants filed by Viscount Monckton of Brenchley et al.
    03/16/2018 Amicus Motion Download Motion filed by Viscount Monckton of Brenchley et al. to file an amici curiae brief in support of defendants.
    03/12/2018 Not Available Download Plaintiffs filed Global Climate Science Communications Team memo (Attachment 2) for tutorial.
    03/12/2018 Not Available Download Plaintiffs filed Global Climate Coalition presentation (Attachment 1) for tutorial.
    03/12/2018 Notice Download Notice filed by plaintiffs of filing of requested documents for tutorial.
    03/06/2018 Order Download Court issued list of "Some Questions for the Tutorial" on climate change. Two weeks before the tutorial, Judge Alsup provided the parties with a list of “Some Questions for the Tutorial,” which included “What is the mechanism by which infrared radiation trapped by CO2 in the atmosphere is turned into heat and finds its way back to sea level?” and “What are the main sources of CO2 that account for the incremental buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere?” He also requested copies of two documents referenced in the cities’ complaints: (1) an internal presentation from February 1996 for the Global Climate Coalition (an organization that the cities said “spent millions of dollars on campaigns to discredit climate science”) that the cities said predicted an average rate of warming greater than any over the past 10,000 years and (2) a memo prepared by an alleged “front group”; the cities said the memo “outlined an explicit strategy to invest millions of dollars to manufacture uncertainty on the issue of global warming.”
    03/01/2018 Order Download Order issued setting deadline for motions to dismiss and inviting United States to file amicus brief. On March 1, the court set a schedule for motions to dismiss, with the parties’ briefing to be completed by April 10. The court invited the United States to submit (by April 20, if possible) “an amicus brief on the question of whether (and the extent to which) federal common law should afford relief of the type requested by the complaints.”
    02/27/2018 Notice Download Notice re Tutorial issued. Federal Court Requested “Tutorial” on Climate Change. On the same day that it denied Oakland's and San Francisco's motions to remand their climate change lawsuits against fossil fuel producers, the court issued a “Notice re Tutorial” that invited counsel for the parties to conduct a two-part tutorial on global warming and climate change on March 21. The court gave each side an hour to “trace the history of scientific study of climate change” and an hour to “set forth the best science now available on global warming, glacier melt, sea rise, and coastal flooding.”
    02/27/2018 Order Download Motions to remand denied. Federal Court Denied Oakland and San Francisco Motions to Return Climate Change Nuisance Cases to State Court; Found Federal Common Law of Nuisance Could Apply, Despite AEP v. Connecticut; Requested “Tutorial” on Climate Change. The federal district court for the Northern District of California denied Oakland’s and San Francisco’s motions to remand their climate change public nuisance lawsuits against five major fossil fuel producers to state court. The court held that federal common law necessarily governed the nuisance claims because “[a] patchwork of fifty different answers to the same fundamental global issue would be unworkable” and “the extent of any judicial relief should be uniform across our nation.” The court stated: “Plaintiffs’ claims for public nuisance, though pled as state-law claims, depend on a global complex of geophysical cause and effect involving all nations of the planet (and the oceans and atmosphere). It necessarily involves the relationships between the United States and all other nations. It demands to be governed by as universal a rule of apportioning responsibility as is available.” The court dispensed with the cities’ three primary arguments for remanding the cases. First, the court said the cities’ novel theories of liability based on the defendants’ sales of their product did not differentiate their claims from earlier transboundary pollution suits in which the Supreme Court (American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut) and Ninth Circuit (Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp.) applied federal common law. Second, the court said the Clean Air Act did not displace the plaintiffs’ federal common law claims, allowing state law to govern; the court said that while the Clean Air Act spoke directly to the “domestic emissions” issues presented in American Electric Power and Kivalina, “[h]ere, the Clean Air Act does not provide a sufficient legislative solution to the nuisance alleged to warrant a conclusion that this legislation has occupied the field to the exclusion of federal common law.” Third, the court said the well-pleaded complaint rule did not bar removal. The court also indicated in dicta that “the very instrumentality of plaintiffs’ alleged injury — the flooding of coastal lands — is, by definition, the navigable waters of the United States. Plaintiffs’ claims therefore necessarily implicate an area quintessentially within the province of the federal courts.” The court said defendants had not waived this issue. The court certified the decision for interlocutory appeal, finding that the issue of whether the nuisance claims were removable because such claims are governed by federal common law was a controlling question as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that resolution by the court of appeals would materially advance the litigation. The court’s order also noted that six similar actions brought by other California municipalities were pending before another judge in the district and those actions asserted additional non-nuisance claims.
    02/19/2018 Reply Download Defendants' reply to plaintiffs' supplemental brief on navigable waters of the United States filed.
    02/19/2018 Reply Download Plaintiffs' supplemental reply brief on navigable waters of the United States filed.
    02/16/2018 Brief Download Defendants' response to request for supplemental briefing filed.
    02/16/2018 Brief Download Plaintiffs' supplemental brief on navigable waters of the United States filed.
    02/12/2018 Request Download Request for supplemental briefing issued. Federal Court in Oakland and California Climate Change Suits Against Fossil Fuel Producers Asked for Additional Briefing on Navigable Waters Issue. The federal district court for the Northern District of California considering whether to remand Oakland and San Francisco's climate change lawsuits against fossil fuel producers issued a request for supplemental briefing on the issue of how the concept of “navigable waters of the United States” related to removal jurisdiction. The court stated that the issue arose “because a necessary and critical element of the hydrological damage caused by defendants’ alleged conduct is the rising sea level along the Pacific coast and in the San Francisco Bay, both of which are navigable waters of the United States.”
    02/05/2018 Response Download Response filed by ExxonMobil to plaintiff's notice of pendency of other action or proceeding.
    02/01/2018 Statement Download Joint case management statement and Rule 26(f) report filed.
    01/15/2018 Reply Download Reply filed in support of motion to remand. Federal Judge to Hear Arguments on Whether Oakland and San Francisco Climate Cases Belong in Federal Court. The federal district court for the Northern District of California is scheduled to hold a hearing on February 8, 2018 to hear arguments on the motion by the Oakland and San Francisco city attorneys to remand their climate change public nuisance actions against five fossil fuel companies to California state court. The parties completed their briefing on the remand motion on January 15, 2018. In their reply in support of remand, the city attorneys asserted that the defendants’ assertions of federal jurisdiction “would federalize vast areas of traditional state law.” They emphasized that they did not seek to limit anyone’s emissions and that the only remedy sought was an “abatement fund” to shift adaptation costs from the public to the fossil fuel companies. The city attorneys also argued that the argument that the cases arose under federal law suffered from the “fatal defect” that they relied on “ordinary preemption doctrines” that did not provide a basis for removal.
    12/19/2017 Opposition Download Joint opposition to motion to remand filed by defendants. In their opposition to the remand motion, the defendants asserted that the cases “implicate longstanding federal government policies, concerning matters of uniquely national importance, including the Nation’s supply of energy and the global environment” and argued that the plaintiffs’ actions necessarily were governed by federal common law and necessarily raised federal questions by seeking “to supplant federal domestic and foreigh policy on greenhouse gas emissions to hold a handful of energy producers liable for the alleged consequences of rising ocean levels on a discrete portion of the U.S. coast.” The defendants also argued that the Clean Air Act completely preempted the actions because the statute “provides the exclusive cause of action for regulation of nationwide emissions.” The defendants also reiterated their arguments that the actions were removable because they were based on the defendants’ activities on federal lands and at the direction of the federal government, and because the claims would have an impact on a number of bankruptcy proceedings, not just Texaco’s, and because exemptions from bankruptcy jurisdiction for governmental exercises of police power were construed narrowly.
    12/14/2017 Complaint Download Third-party complaint filed by Chevron Corp. Chevron Corporation filed a third-party complaint against Statoil ASA—an energy company of which the Norwegian State is majority stakeholder—for indemnity and contribution. Chevron asserted that while the plaintiffs’ claims were meritless, Statoil, “as well as potentially the many other sovereign governments that use and promote fossil fuels,” must be joined as third-party defendants.
    11/20/2017 Motion Download Motion to remand filed by plaintiffs. The plaintiffs argued that their actions did not arise under federal common law because they were based on the defendants’ “production and improper promotion of fossil fuels in massive quantities – a basis of liability cognizable under state law but wholly foreign to federal common law.” The plaintiffs also said the defendants “badly err[ed]” in arguing that the Ninth Circuit held in Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp. that all tort claims related to global warming were governed by federal common law. The city attorneys also asserted that none of the other theories in the defendants’ “kitchen-sink notices of removal” had merit: the plaintiffs argued that that their claim to relief did not necessarily raise a substantial and disputed federal issue and also asserted that no court had held that the Clean Air Act completely preempted state common law public nuisance claims. The plaintiffs also said that the fact that “some unspecified portion of [the defendants’] oil and gas production occurs on federal land” did not provide a basis for removal under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act or under a “federal officer” or “federal enclave” theory of removal. The plaintiffs also argued that the bankruptcy removal statute did not provide a basis for removal based on the 30-year-old bankruptcy of Texaco, a subsidiary of defendant Chevron Corporation.
    11/08/2017 Order Download Administrative motion to relate cases denied. California Federal Court Denied Oil and Gas Companies’ Motion to Relate San Francisco and Oakland Climate Cases to Other Pending Cases. The Executive Committee for the Northern District of California denied the motion by defendants in climate change cases brought by the Oakland and San Francisco city attorneys to relate those two cases to the pending cases brought by San Mateo and Marin Counties and the City of Imperial Beach.
    11/06/2017 Not Available Download Statement regarding administrative motion to relate cases filed by San Mateo and Marin Counties and City of Imperial Beach. San Mateo and Marin Counties and the City of Imperial Beach took no position on the defendants' administrative motion to relate their cases to the cases brought by Oakland and San Francisco.
    11/03/2017 Opposition Download Joint response filed by Oakland and San Francisco in opposition to administrative motion to relate cases. San Francisco and Oakland opposed relating the cases to the cases brought by San Mateo and Marin Counties and the City of Imperial Beach.
    11/02/2017 Motion Download Administrative motion filed by defendants to relate cases. The defendants moved to relate Oakland's and San Francisco's cases to the lawsuits brought by San Mateo and Marin Counties and the City of Imperial Beach.
    10/20/2017 Notice Download Notice of removal filed by defendants. Oil and Gas Companies Removed San Francisco and Oakland Climate Cases to Federal Court. On October 20, 2017, the five oil and gas company defendants in the City of San Francisco’s and City of Oakland’s climate change nuisance lawsuits removed the cases to federal court. The defendants asserted that the complaints arose under federal laws and treaties, presented substantial federal questions, and presented a claim preempted by federal law.
  • City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c.
    Docket number(s): 18-16663
    Court/Admin Entity: 9th Cir.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    08/20/2020 Not Available Download Mandate issued.
    08/12/2020 Order Download Order issued amending opinion and denying petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc. Ninth Circuit Denied Rehearing of Decision that Federal-Question Jurisdiction Did Not Provide Basis for Removing Oakland and San Francisco Climate Cases to Federal Court. The Ninth Circuit denied the energy company defendants’ petition for panel rehearing and/or rehearing en banc of its opinion reversing the district court’s determination that federal-question jurisdiction provided a basis for removal. The Ninth Circuit also amended a footnote in the opinion in response to a letter from the district court judge requesting that the Ninth Circuit withdraw the footnote. The district court judge asserted that Ninth Circuit’s opinion misconstrued his decision as relying on admiralty jurisdiction (which the energy companies had not identified as a basis for removal) rather than on federal-question jurisdiction arising out of the navigable waters of the United States. The amended footnote indicated that an argument that there was federal-question jurisdiction because “the instrumentality of the alleged harm is the navigable waters of the United States” failed for the reasons set forth in the section of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion that held there was no exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule.
    08/03/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by the United States as amicus curiae in support of the petition for rehearing. The United States, as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 20 states, filed amicus briefs in support of the petition for rehearing. The U.S. argued that whether “arising under federal common law” is a basis for removal and whether the case is governed by federal or state law are issues of “exceptional importance.” The U.S. said the Ninth Circuit’s failure to recognize “arising under federal common law” as a basis for removal conflicted with Ninth Circuit precedent. The U.S. also said rehearing should be granted because the Ninth Circuit “took a wrong turn” when it determined that improper removal could not be excused by the plaintiffs’ subsequent amendment of their complaint to include a federal claim.
    07/20/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by U.S. Chamber of Commerce as amicus curiae in support of appellees' petition for rehearing en banc.
    07/20/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by Indiana and 19 other states as amici curiae in support of defendants-appellees' petition for panel rehearing and/or petition for rehearing en banc.
    07/16/2020 Order Download U.S. Chamber of Commerce motion to extend time to file amicus brief denied.
    07/15/2020 Motion Download Motion filed by U.S. Chamber of Commerce for extension of time to file amicus briefs in support of petition for rehearing.
    07/14/2020 Order Download United States motion to extend time to file amicus brief granted.
    07/13/2020 Motion Download Motion filed by United States as amicus curiae for a 14-day extension to consider whether to file a brief in support of rehearing.
    07/08/2020 Petition for Rehearing Download Petition for panel rehearing and/or rehearing en banc filed by defendants-appellees.
    07/07/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs in response to District Court Judge Alsup's letter of June 25, 2020.
    06/25/2020 Letter Download Request for correction submitted by district court. District Court Asked Ninth Circuit to Delete Footnote in Opinion Reversing Determination on Removal Jurisdiction. A month after the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s determination that federal-question jurisdiction provided a basis for the removal of Oakland and San Francisco’s climate change nuisance lawsuits against oil and gas companies, Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California submitted a letter to the Ninth Circuit “to correct a mistake” in the Ninth Circuit’s opinion. Judge Alsup said a footnote in which the Ninth Circuit “declined to address the extent to which the complaints’ dependence on the navigable waters of the United States afforded removal jurisdiction” incorrectly indicated that his decision relied on admiralty jurisdiction as a basis for removal, a grounds not identified by the companies in their removal notices. Judge Alsup said this footnote “confused federal-question jurisdiction arising out of the navigable waters of the United States with admiralty jurisdiction.” Judge Alsup’s letter asserted that navigable waters “serve as a bedrock of federal common law and federal-question jurisdiction” and requested that the Ninth Circuit withdraw the footnote and address “the merits of the ground on which removal jurisdiction was actually sustained.”
    06/08/2020 Order Download Motion for extension of time to file a petition for rehearing granted. Fossil Fuel Companies Must File Petitions for Rehearing by July 9. On June 8, 2020, the Ninth Circuit granted the companies’ motion for an extension of time to file a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc in both the Oakland/San Francisco case as well as in County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., in which the Ninth Circuit affirmed remand orders. Any petition for rehearing must be filed by July 9.
    06/02/2020 Motion Download Motion filed by defendants for extension of time to file petition for panel rehearing and/or rehearing en banc.
    05/26/2020 Opinion Download Denial of defendants’ motion to remand cases to state court vacated and cases remanded for consideration of whether there was an alternative basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Ninth Circuit Ruled for California Cities and Counties on Questions of Whether Climate Lawsuits Against Energy Companies Belonged in State or Federal Court. In an appeal by Oakland and San Francisco of a district court’s denial of remand in, and dismissal of, their suits, the Ninth Circuit reversed the federal district court’s determination that federal-question jurisdiction provided a basis for removal. The Ninth Circuit remanded for the district court to determine whether there was an alternative basis for jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit held that the cities’ state-law claim for public nuisance did not arise under federal law because no exception to the “well-pleaded complaint rule” applied. First, the Ninth Circuit found that the cities’ nuisance claim did not raise “a substantial federal question.” The court noted that the companies had contended that the nuisance claim implicated “federal interests” such as energy policy, national security, and foreign policy, but the court said this was not sufficient to establish federal-question jurisdiction even though the question of whether the companies should be held liable and be compelled to abate harms was “no doubt an important policy question.” Second, the Ninth Circuit rejected the companies’ argument that the Clean Air Act completely preempted the cities’ public nuisance claim. The Ninth Circuit also rejected the companies’ argument that the cities waived their arguments in favor of remand by amending their complaint to add a federal common law claim; the Ninth Circuit said the cities’ reservation of rights was sufficient. The Ninth Circuit also rejected the companies’ contention that improper removal could be excused based on “considerations of finality, efficiency, and economy.” The Ninth Circuit concluded that dismissal for failure to state a claim at the pleading stage did not warrant departure from the general rule that a case must be fit for federal adjudication at the time of removal.
    05/14/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron Corporation concerning supplemental authority (Eighth Circuit affirmation of orders discharging claims against Peabody Energy Corporation).
    05/13/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron Corporation in response to plaintiffs' April 24, 2020 letter concerning supplemental authority.
    04/24/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs concerning supplemental authority.
    03/24/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron Corporation in response to plaintiffs-appellants' March 10, 2020 letter regarding Fourth Circuit's decision in the Baltimore case. In response to Rhode Island's letter concerning the Fourth Circuit's decision in the Baltimore case, defendant Chevron Corporation asserted that the Fourth Circuit based its determination that federal-officer removal was inapplicable on an incorrect conclusion regarding the focus of Baltimore’s claims. Chevron also said the Ninth Circuit could review all grounds for removal since this appeal was from a final judgment, not just the remand order; Chevron also reasserted the defendants’ contention that Oakland and San Francisco’s amendment of their complaint after the denial of their motion to remand mooted their appeal of the denial.
    03/24/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron Corporation in response to plaintiffs-appellants' letter of March 18, 2020 concerning supplemental authority.
    03/18/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellants regarding supplemental authority.
    03/10/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellants regarding Fourth Circuit's decision in Baltimore's case. Oakland and San Francisco notified the Ninth Circuit of the Fourth Circuit’s decision affirming the remand order in Baltimore's case. They told the Ninth Circuit that the Fourth Circuit had rejected the only basis for federal-officer removal that the defendants-appellees offered in their case.
    02/13/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by nonresident appellees in response to appellants' February 10, 2020 letter.
    02/10/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellants regarding post-argument citation of supplemental authorities.
    02/05/2020 Not Available Oral argument held. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on February 5, 2020. Judges Ikuta, Christen, and Lee comprise the panel considering the appeal.
    01/31/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by appellees BP p.l.c., ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corporation, and Royal Dutch Shell plc regarding supplemental authority concerning personal jurisdiction issue.
    01/31/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellants in response to Chevron Corporation's January 29, 2020 letter.
    01/29/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron Corporation regarding supplemental authority. Chevron Corporation submitted a letter asserting that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Juliana v. United States supported the companies’ argument that the climate change claims asserted by local and state governments against the companies “have their source in federal law and therefore belong in federal court.”
    01/28/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellants regarding supplemental authority.
    01/15/2020 Order Download U.S. motion to participate in oral argument granted. On January 15, the court granted a motion by the United States to participate in the oral argument as amicus curiae in support of affirmance of the dismissal of San Francisco and Oakland’s case.
    01/13/2020 Motion Download Motion filed by the United States as amicus curiae for leave to participate in oral argument.
    12/30/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellants in response to Chevron's December 19, 2019 letter.
    12/19/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron Corporation regarding supplemental authority.
    11/24/2019 Notice Download Oral argument scheduled for February 5, 2020. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals scheduled oral argument in San Francisco and Oakland's appeal for the morning of Wednesday, February 5, 2020. Their appeal was scheduled to be heard with the fossil fuel companies' appeal of remand orders in cases brought by other local governments.
    10/02/2019 Notice Download Court issued notice requesting that parties advise the court of unavoidable conflicts for oral argument dates in February 2020 and two subsequent sitting months.
    09/10/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellants to notify the court of the remand order in Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc.
    07/26/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by appellants to notify the court of the remand order in Rhode Island v. Chevron Corp.
    07/17/2019 Order Download Motion to assign the appeals to a single panel granted. City of Oakland and County of San Mateo Appeals to Be Heard by Same Panel. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a motion by oil and gas companies to assign Oakland and San Francisco’s appeal of the district court decisions denying remand and dismissing their climate change nuisance actions to the same panel that will hear the companies’ appeals of the order remanding the County of San Mateo’s and three other climate lawsuits to California state court. The court subsequently notified the parties that it was considering the cases for an upcoming oral argument and asked for information on counsel’s availability in November, December, and January.
    07/01/2019 Motion Download Motion filed by defendants to assign appeals to a single panel.
    07/01/2019 Reply Download Consolidated reply brief filed by plaintiffs-appellants.
    06/14/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron Corporation to notify the court of a recent Supreme Court decision.
    05/22/2019 Order Download Request to extend time to file reply brief until July 1, 2019 approved.
    05/22/2019 Request Download Request filed by appellants for extension of time to file reply brief.
    05/17/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by National Association of Manufacturers in support of defendants-appellees and affirmance.
    05/17/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by Washington Legal Foundation in support of defendants-appellees and affirmance.
    05/17/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by United States in support of appellees and affirmance.
    05/17/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by Professors Richard A. Epstein, Jason Scott Johnston, and Henry N. Butler in support of defendants and appellees.
    05/17/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by Indiana and 17 other states in support of defendants-appellees.
    05/14/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America in support of appellees and affirmance.
    05/10/2019 Brief Download Answering brief filed by defendant-appellee Chevron Corporation.
    05/10/2019 Brief Download Brief filed by appellees BP p.l.c., ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corporation, and Royal Dutch Shell plc.
    03/20/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed in support of plaintiff-appellants by States of California, Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington and the District of Columbia. Ten states and the District of Columbia argued that the cases belonged in state court and that the district court’s personal jurisdiction ruling would have “far reaching adverse consequences.”
    03/20/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed in support of plaintiffs-appellants and reversal by Center for Climate Integrity, Union of Concerned Scientists, and "scholars and scientists with strong interests, education, and experience in the environment and the science of climate change, with particular interest in public information and communication about climate change and how the public and public leaders learn about and understand climate change." The Center for Climate Integrity, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and “scholars and scientists with strong interests, education, and experience in the environment and the science of climate change, with particular interest in public information and communication about climate change and how the public and public leaders learn about and understand climate change” indicated that their amicus brief was intended to document what they described as the defendants’ “coordinated, multi-front effort” to conceal their knowledge that “the unabated extraction, production, promotion, and sale of their fossil fuel products would result in material dangers to the public.”
    03/20/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by California State Association of Counties in support of reversal. The California State Association of Counties argued that the municipalities’ claims belonged in state court and that personal jurisdiction was proper.
    03/20/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by former U.S. government officials supporting reversal of the district court's decision. Former U.S. government officials did not take a position on the merits of the lawsuit but argued that the district court had erred when it invoked “diplomatic concerns” as a basis for dismissing the municipalities’ claims.
    03/20/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed in support of plaintiff-appellants and reversal of the district court's decision by conflict of laws and foreign relations law scholars. Law professors with expertise in conflict of laws and foreign relations law argued that the district court erred in applying the presumption against extraterritoriality to the municipalities’ claims and that “judicial caution” in the area of foreign affairs did not apply to the municipalities’ domestic tort claims. They also asserted that there was no foreign affairs preemption in this case.
    03/20/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by scientists and scholars who "have devoted much of their professional life to studying, writing, and teaching one or more aspects of climate science, including sea level rise and its impacts on coastal communities." Scientists and scholars with expertise in climate science submitted a brief to assist the court in understanding “the relevant science and the inevitable adaptation expenses these communities are facing.”
    03/20/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and International Municipal Lawyers Association in support of plaintiffs-appellants and reversal. Three local government associations argued that the lawsuits should be remanded or, in the alternative, that the Ninth Circuit should reverse the dismissal of the municipalities’ claims on displacement and separation of powers grounds. They also contended that the district court’s test for specific personal jurisdiction “places an impossible burden on cities seeking to use nuisance to address harms from activities that cross jurisdictional boundaries.”
    03/20/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by Natural Resources Defense Council in support of appellants and reversal. Natural Resources Defense Council argued that neither federal common law nor the Clean Air Act completely preempted the municipalities’ claims.
    03/20/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by "professors of property law, tort law, and related private law subjects" with "extensive experience studying and teaching the doctrines of nuisance law" in support of plaintiffs-appellants. Legal scholars with expertise in property and tort law and related areas contended that California courts were “well-equipped” to handle the municipalities’ public nuisance claims and that nuisance law would provide an “efficient remedy” by requiring the defendants “to internalize the costs of any wrongful promotion of fossil fuels.”
    03/20/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by Senators Whitehouse, Feinstein, Blumenthal, Hirono, Markey, and Harris in support of reversal. Six U.S. senators, including both California senators, contended that the municipalities’ claims were a “classic case or controversy,” “not some abstract political question that is both nonjusticiable and committed to the other branches of government.” They asserted, moreover, that acceptance of the defendants’ separation of powers argument “at face value” would reward the defendants’ “decades-long efforts” to stifle climate change action by Congress, the executive branch, and international bodies and would not be consistent with the public interest or justice for the municipalities.
    03/13/2019 Brief Download Opening brief filed by plaintiffs-appellants. Oakland, San Francisco, and Amici Argued for Revival of Climate Change Nuisance Case. On March 13, 2019, Oakland and San Francisco filed their opening brief in their Ninth Circuit appeal of the dismissal of their climate change nuisance action against oil and gas companies. They argued first that the district court erred in denying their motion to remand to state court in the absence of complete preemption of their state law public nuisance claim. They argued that their claims were not governed by federal common law and that there was no other basis for removal jurisdiction. Second, the municipalities argued that the district court’s dismissal of the action—based on the “supposedly ‘extraterritorial’ reach” of the claims and potential interference with “foreign policy”—“rested on a mischaracterization” of their public nuisance claims as seeking to regulate or enjoin greenhouse gas emissions. The plaintiffs described their actions as seeking only an equitable abatement remedy to mitigate local harms caused by climate change based on the defendants’ wrongful promotion of their fossil fuel products “while intentionally failing to disclose material information and/or affirmatively making misleading statements about the inevitable, devastating impacts on coastal communities it knew would result from the expanded use of … otherwise lawful products.” The municipalities asserted that their state law nuisance claims “easily survive” a federal preemption defense; that the presumption against extraterritoriality did not apply (or would be overcome if it did apply); and that the claims could be adjudicated without any foreign policy concerns. Finally, the municipalities contended that the court erred in declining to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over four out-of-state companies.
    02/14/2019 Order Download Appellants' motion for an extension of time to file the opening brief granted. The Ninth Circuit granted Oakland and San Francisco's request for a second extension of time in which to file their opening brief. Their brief is due March 13, 2019; appellees' answering brief is due April 12, 2019; and the optional reply brief is due 21 days after the answering brief.
    02/13/2019 Motion Download Unopposed joint motion for extension of time filed by plaintiffs-appellants.
    12/03/2018 Order Download Appellants motion for an extension of time to file the opening brief granted. The Ninth Circuit granted a motion by Oakland and San Francisco to extend the deadline for filing their opening brief. Their brief was to be filed by February 25, 2019, with the appellees' brief due on March 27 and an optional reply brief due 21 days later.
    11/21/2018 Motion Download Joint motion for extension of time filed by plaintiffs-appellants City of Oakland and City and County of San Francisco.
  • People of State of California v. BP p.l.c. (Oakland)
    Docket number(s): RG17875889
    Court/Admin Entity: Cal. Super. Ct.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    09/19/2017 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Oakland Asked State Court to Require Oil and Gas Companies to Fund Climate Adaptation Program. Oakland filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court against five oil and gas companies alleging that the carbon emissions from their fossil fuel production had created an unlawful public nuisance. The complaint alleged that the defendants had produced and promoted the use of “massive amounts” of fossil fuels despite having been aware since the 1950s, based on information from the American Petroleum Institute, that emissions from fossil fuels would cause severe and even catastrophic climate change impacts. The complaint alleged that Oakland was already experiencing impacts from accelerated sea level rise due to climate change. The city asked the court to require the companies to abate the nuisance by funding a climate adaptation program to build sea walls and other infrastructure necessary to protect public and private property from sea level rise and other climate impacts.
  • People of State of California v. BP p.l.c. (San Francisco)
    Docket number(s): 3:17-cv-06012-EMC
    Court/Admin Entity: N.D. Cal.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    08/24/2018 Notice of Appeal Download Notice of appeal filed.
    10/20/2017 Notice Download Notice of removal filed.
  • People of State of California v. BP p.l.c. (San Francisco)
    Docket number(s): CGC-17-561370
    Court/Admin Entity: Cal. Super. Ct.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    09/19/2017 Complaint Download Complaint filed. San Francisco Asked State Court to Require Oil and Gas Companies to Fund Climate Adaptation Program. San Francisco filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court against five oil and gas companies alleging that the carbon emissions from their fossil fuel production had created an unlawful public nuisance. The complaint alleged that the defendants had produced and promoted the use of “massive amounts” of fossil fuels despite having been aware since the 1950s, based on information from the American Petroleum Institute, that emissions from fossil fuels would cause severe and even catastrophic climate change impacts. The complaint alleged that San Francisco was already experiencing impacts from accelerated sea level rise due to climate change. The city asked the court to require the companies to abate the nuisance by funding a climate adaptation program to build sea walls and other infrastructure necessary to protect public and private property from sea level rise and other climate impacts.