Description: Lawsuit seeking to hold Exxon Mobil Corporation liable for violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act in connection with alleged deceptive acts to create uncertainty about climate science.
-
Connecticut v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 07/20/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by Connecticut to submit supplemental authority (Ninth Circuit decision in Honolulu and Maui cases). 07/18/2022 Order Oral argument scheduled. Second Circuit to Hear Oral Argument on September 23 in Appeal of Remand Order in Connecticut’s Climate Case. The Second Circuit scheduled oral argument for September 23, 2022 in Exxon Mobil Corporation’s (Exxon’s) appeal of the remand order in Connecticut’s lawsuit seeking to hold Exxon liable for violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act in connection with alleged deceptive acts to create uncertainty about climate science. 05/25/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by Connecticut regarding supplemental authority (First Circuit decision in Rhode Island case). 05/03/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by defendants in response to Connecticut's supplemental authorities (Fourth Circuit decision in Baltimore case and Ninth Circuit decision in County of San Mateo case). 03/02/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by appellant in response to Connecticut's letter regarding Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County case. 02/09/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by State of Connecticut regarding supplemental authority (Tenth Circuit decision affirming remand order in Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County case). 11/15/2021 Reply Download Reply brief filed by appellant Exxon Mobil Corporation. On November 15, 2021, briefing was completed in ExxonMobil's (Exxon's) appeal of the remand order in the State of Connecticut’s case alleging that Exxon engaged in deceptive and unfair business practices in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by misleading and deceiving consumers “about the negative effects of its business practices on the climate.” 11/12/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amicus curiae New York City in support of plaintiff-appellee to affirm the district court's decision. 11/12/2021 Amicus Motion Download Brief filed by 13 amici states led by New York in support of Connecticut. 11/11/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by Natural Resources Defense Council as amicus curiae in support of appellee and affirmance. 11/04/2021 Brief Download Brief filed by appellee State of Connecticut. 10/05/2021 Order Download Motion to stay remand order pending appeal granted. Second Circuit Stayed Remand Order in Connecticut’s Climate Case Against Exxon. On October 5, 2021, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the district court’s remand order pending appeal in the State of Connecticut’s unfair trade practices case against Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon). The Second Circuit found that Exxon had made a sufficient showing that it was entitled to a stay. Connecticut was ordered to file its brief within 30 days (by November 4), and Exxon’s reply brief is due 10 days after Connecticut files its brief. 09/21/2021 Brief Download Brief filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation. 09/20/2021 Notice Download Notice of motion placed on the calendar. The Second Circuit scheduled oral argument for October 5, 2021 on Exxon Mobil Corporation’s motion to stay the remand order in Connecticut’s case against the company. 07/02/2021 Reply Download Reply filed in support of motion for a stay of the remand order pending appeal. 06/25/2021 Opposition Download Response filed by Connecticut in opposition to the motion for a stay of the remand order pending appeal. 06/18/2021 Motion Download Motion for a stay of the remand order pending appeal filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation. -
Connecticut v. Exxon Mobil Corporation
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 06/11/2021 Order Motion to stay execution of remand order granted in part and denied in part. The district court granted a temporary stay of the remand order pending the Second Circuit’s decision on Exxon’s motion to stay, which Exxon filed on June 18. The district court said it did not view Exxon’s arguments in support of its motion to stay execution of the remand order “as showing a strong likelihood of success on the merits, or even a likelihood of success with the balance of the equities in the defendants [sic] favor.” 06/08/2021 Motion Download Motion filed by Exxon to stay execution of remand order pending appeal. 06/08/2021 Notice of Appeal Download Notice of appeal filed. 06/02/2021 Ruling Download Motion to remand granted. Connecticut Federal Court Granted State’s Motion to Remand Unfair Trade Practices Lawsuit Against Exxon. The federal district court for the District of Connecticut granted the State of Connecticut’s motion to remand its lawsuit against Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) in which the State asserts claims under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) arising from Exxon’s alleged false or misleading statements about connections between its products and climate change, as well as alleged interference with the marketplace for renewable energy and alleged “greenwashing.” Citing the well-pleaded complaint rule, the court characterized Connecticut’s claims as alleging that Exxon “lied to Connecticut consumers and that these lies affected the behavior of those consumers”; the court said that “[t]he fact that the alleged lies were about the impacts of fossil fuels on the Earth’s climate does not empower the court to rewrite the Complaint and substitute other claims” such as the common law nuisance and trespass claims asserted against fossil fuel companies in other cases. The court then concluded that none of the exceptions to the well-pleaded complaint rule applied. First, the court found that Exxon failed to show that federal common law justified removal, even if it might provide a defense. Second, the court concluded that CUTPA claims did not “necessarily raise” federal issues, as would be required for the Grable exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule. In addition, the court found that neither the federal officer removal statute, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, federal enclave jurisdiction, nor diversity jurisdiction provided grounds for removal. The court denied, however, Connecticut’s motion for costs and fees, noting that several issues raised by Exxon were novel in the Second Circuit and that many relevant portions of district court rulings in other circuits had not been subject to appellate review until the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Baltimore case. 12/02/2020 Motion Download Motion to remand and memorandum of law in support of motion filed by Connecticut. 11/13/2020 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation. -
State v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 09/14/2020 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Connecticut Filed Lawsuit Alleging Exxon Engaged in “Campaign of Deception” Regarding Climate Change. Connecticut filed a lawsuit against Exxon Mobil Corporation in Connecticut Superior Court alleging that Exxon “misled and deceived Connecticut consumers about the negative effects of its business practices on the climate.” Connecticut alleged that Exxon executives and other agents knew as early as the 1950s that fossil fuel combustion contributed to global warming and that when Exxon had the opportunity in the 1980s “to responsibly contribute to public understanding of climate change and its potentially catastrophic consequences,” Exxon instead “began a systematic campaign of deception” to undermine climate science and maximize its profits. The complaint listed “myriad negative consequences in Connecticut” to which the State alleged the “campaign of deception” contributed, including sea level rise, flooding, drought, increases in extreme temperatures and severe storms, decreases in air quality, contamination of drinking water, increases in spread of diseases, and severe economic consequences. The State asserted eight counts under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and sought injunctive and equitable relief; civil penalties; restitution for State expenditures attributable to Exxon to respond to the effects of climate change; disgorgement of revenues, profits, and gains; disclosure of research and studies on climate change; and funding of a corrective education campaign.