Municipalities of Puerto Rico v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

Filing Date: 2022
Case Categories:
Principal Laws:
Sherman Antitrust Act, Failure to Warn, Common Law Consumer Fraud, Rule 7 of Puerto Rico Rules Against Misleading Practices and Advertisements, Puerto Rico Nuisance Statute (32 L.P.R.A. §2761), Strict Liability—Design Defect, Negligent Design Defect, Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations Act (RICO), Conspiracy, State Law–Strict Liability, State Law—Unjust Enrichment
Description: Lawsuit brought by municipalities in Puerto Rico seeking to hold fossil fuel companies liable for losses resulting from storms during the 2017 hurricane season and ongoing economic losses since 2017.
  • Municipalities of Puerto Rico v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
    Docket number(s): 3:22-cv-01550
    Court/Admin Entity: D.P.R.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    03/21/2025 Objection Download Joint objections to report and recommendation filed by defendants.
    03/21/2025 Objection Download Consolidated objections to report and recommendation filed by plaintiffs.
    02/20/2025 Report and Recommendation Download Magistrate judge issued omnibus report and recommendation. Federal Magistrate Said Puerto Rico Municipalities’ RICO and Antitrust Climate Claims Should Proceed Against Fossil Fuel Companies. A federal magistrate judge in the District of Puerto Rico recommended that the district court deny fossil fuel companies’ motions to dismiss Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and antitrust claims brought by Puerto Rico municipalities, but recommended dismissal of claims brought under Puerto Rico law. The magistrate described the municipalities as claiming that the defendants “engaged in a decades-long campaign to misrepresent the dangers of carbon-based and fossil fuel products which they marketed and sold” and that this conduct “ultimately led to the catastrophic destruction brought about by” Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017. Regarding personal jurisdiction, the magistrate judge found that the municipalities adequately pleaded that the defendants marketed, promoted, and sold products in Puerto Rico in satisfaction of the “purposeful availment” test; that these alleged activities were sufficiently related to the municipalities’ claims of a disinformation campaign; and also that the exercise of jurisdiction was reasonable. The magistrate recommended further discovery as to the jurisdictional issues (including with respect to certain defendants’ activities in Puerto Rico). The magistrate also recommended that a determination of RICO jurisdiction be deferred until after completion of jurisdictional discovery. The magistrate recommended dismissal of Occidental Petroleum due to improper service. Regarding the defendants’ statute of limitations arguments, the magistrate recommended that the motion to dismiss the claims as time-barred be denied because the municipalities sufficiently alleged that the defendants “engaged in a continued pattern of unlawful acts or omissions which cause foreseeable damages” and, alternatively, recommended that the motion be denied based on the doctrine of equitable tolling due to the defendants’ alleged fraudulent concealment of a disinformation campaign. The magistrate also concluded that the complaint adequately alleged the elements of RICO claims, including proximate causation, conspiracy, and the existence of an “enterprise” based on allegations that the American Petroleum Institute’s (API’s) and Global Climate Coalition’s (GCC’s) purpose was “to engage in a propaganda campaign to misrepresent the effects of fossil fuels on climate change.” Although the magistrate found that the municipalities’ allegations fell short of the heightened pleading standard for fraud, the magistrate recommended that the court allow the municipalities to conduct discovery on the RICO claims, finding that the municipalities sufficiently pled that information pertaining to the racketeering activity was likely under the defendants’ control. The magistrate rejected, at this stage of the litigation, the arguments that because the RICO claims were based on allegations regarding membership in API and GCC and the defendants’ public statements on climate change, the First Amendment and Noerr-Pennington doctrine (which protects entities who “join together to influence government action—even if they seek to restrain competition or to damage competitors”) barred the claims. The magistrate noted that the conduct alleged by the plaintiffs would not be protected under the First Amendment or shielded by Noerr-Pennington immunity. The magistrate recommended dismissal, however, of claims under RICO that required that the harm to the municipalities be alleged to result from the defendants’ acquisition or control over the enterprises or the use or investment of income derived from racketeering activities. The magistrate also recommended dismissal of all RICO claims against API, finding that the municipalities could not seek a remedy against API both as an “enterprise” and as a “person” subject to RICO liability. The magistrate also found that the municipalities could only bring the claims “as to their own proprietary rights” and not on behalf of their residents. For the municipalities’ antitrust claim, the magistrate found that the pleading of the existence of an anticompetitive agreement and an antitrust injury was sufficient to survive dismissal. Although the magistrate concluded that federal law did not preempt the municipalities’ nine claims under Puerto Rico law, the magistrate recommended dismissal of all nine causes of action for failure to state a claim.
    01/18/2024 Order Motions to dismiss denied as moot.
    11/03/2023 Complaint Download Amended complaint filed.
    11/03/2023 Statement Download Amended racketeering case statement filed.
    10/13/2023 Motion Download Joint motion for judicial notice filed by defendants.
    10/13/2023 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by BHP Group Limited.
    10/13/2023 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by BHP Group Limited.
    10/13/2023 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by BP p.l.c
    10/13/2023 Motion to Dismiss Download Brief filed by Chevron Corporation in support of motion to dismiss.
    10/13/2023 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss filed by ConocoPhillips.
    10/13/2023 Motion to Dismiss Download Joint motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by defendants.
    10/13/2023 Motion to Dismiss Download Joint motion to dismiss filed by defendants.
    10/13/2023 Motion to Dismiss Download Supplemental memorandum of law filed by ExxonMobil in support of defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
    10/13/2023 Motion to Dismiss Download Supplemental motion to dismiss filed by Motiva Enterprises LLC.
    10/13/2023 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by Rio Tinto plc.
    10/13/2023 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by Rio Tinto plc.
    10/13/2023 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss filed by Shell plc.
    11/22/2022 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Puerto Rico Municipalities Filed Federal Suit Seeking Climate Change Damages from Fossil Fuel Companies. Sixteen Puerto Rico municipalities filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Puerto Rico seeking to hold coal, oil, and gas companies liable for losses resulting from storms during the 2017 hurricane season and ongoing economic losses since that time. The municipalities brought the action on their own behalf as well as on behalf of a proposed class of all of Puerto Rico’s municipalities. The municipalities alleged that the defendants were responsible for 40.01% of all global industrial greenhouse gas emissions from 1965 to 2017, and that these collective emissions were a “substantial factor in the increase in intensity of the 2017 Atlantic Hurricane Season.” The municipalities alleged that Puerto Rico “suffered apocalyptic damage” from two of those storms—Hurricanes Irma and Maria—which they alleged were intensified by climate change, “as accelerated by Defendants’ consumer products and conduct.” The plaintiffs contended that the defendants were liable because “they knowingly caused and contributed to the worsening of the climate change by producing, promoting, refining, marketing, and selling fossil fuel products … that have caused and continue to cause the devastating effects of climate change, while concealing and misrepresenting the dangers associated with the use of fossil fuel-based products, including the increased frequency of more dangerous storms.” The complaint alleged a “corporate worldwide strategy” to hide information linking the defendants’ products to acceleration of climate change and to an increased likelihood “that Puerto Rico and thus the Plaintiff Municipalities would be ravaged by dangerous, deadly storms.” In addition to more intense storms, the municipalities alleged other physical climate change impacts, including coral reef degradation and “an unprecedented, massive bloom of sargassum,” as well as social, educational, and economic losses, including increased immigration from the municipalities and damages to the agricultural industry. The municipalities asked that the defendants pay costs the plaintiffs had incurred and would continue to incur due to climate change. They also sought punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, pre-judgment interest, attorneys’ and expert witness fees and other costs, and other equitable, declaratory and/or injunctive relief “to assure … an effective remedy.” They asserted 14 causes of action under federal and Puerto Rico law: claims of common law consumer fraud and conspiracy to commit common law consumer fraud and deceptive business practices, claims under Puerto Rico’s statute prohibiting false or misleading advertisements and practices, claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), federal antitrust claims, claims under Puerto Rico’s nuisance statute, strict liability claims based on failure to warn and design defect, a negligent design defect claim, and a cause of action for unjust enrichment/restitution.