The Climate Docket

WHAT WE COVER:

  • Liability Litigation
    • Baltimore Lawsuit
    • California Climate Lawsuits
    • Colorado Lawsuit
    • Mass. v. Exxon
    • New York City Lawsuit
    • Rhode Island Lawsuit
    • Other Suits
  • Access to Courts
    • Liability Waivers
    • State Legislation
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Powered by Genesis

You are here: Home / Liability Litigation / In California Climate Cases, Jurisdictional Battle Takes Center Stage
In California Climate Cases, Jurisdictional Battle Takes Center Stage

In California Climate Cases, Jurisdictional Battle Takes Center Stage

February 27, 2018 Filed Under: California Climate Lawsuits, Liability Litigation

print
By Dana Drugmand

California counties and cities suing the fossil fuel industry for climate damage are fighting back against the industry’s attempts to move their cases from state to federal court, a jurisdictional tug-of-war likely crucial to the cases’ success. In two separate hearings in mid-February, two U.S. District Court judges heard both sides in hearings with the defendant companies arguing the plaintiffs’ complaints are inherently about global fossil fuel emissions, raising questions about federal energy policy and market conduct outside of California.

The cities of San Francisco and Oakland, as well as the counties of Marin and San Mateo and the city of Imperial Beach argued their claims arise under state nuisance law and should be moved back to state court.

Both hearings were held in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, with Judge William Alsup hearing the San Francisco and Oakland cases and Judge Vince Chhabria hearing the three others. The timetable for the judges’ decisions is uncertain.

In the hearing for the San Mateo cases on February 15, Judge Chhabria sounded skeptical of the fossil fuel industry position, which was presented by Chevron lawyer Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. “I sympathize with your argument to a point. This certainly feels like a national issue,” the judge said initially, but went on to question key tenets of the defendants’ argument.

The defendants argue that federal common law must govern the plaintiffs’ claims, which raise federal issues, that the Clean Air Act completely preempts those claims, that the claims implicate defendant activity on federal lands and that the lawsuits involve bankruptcy proceedings—defendant Peabody Coal has successfully argued its bankruptcy shields it from previous liabilities and was released from the case.

But Judge Chhabria challenged several of these points. He said the Clean Air Act does not completely preempt the plaintiffs’ claims and  said state courts are capable of deciding preemption questions. The judge said federal common law doesn’t exist in this case and so the question becomes whether existing regulations allow for state law nuisance actions. “That is a straight preemption question that needs to be decided by the state court,” Chhabria said.

The California plaintiffs say their complaint arises under well-established state tort law. The core issue is not energy policy and regulation, but rather the defendants’ deceitful promotion of a harmful product and product liability tort is traditionally the domain of state law. For example, California lead paint litigation proceeded under California tort law. Like the lead paint manufacturers, the fossil fuel defendants knowingly sold and marketed a harmful product while concealing the danger, the plaintiffs say.

“Whether the lawsuits are in state court or federal court, we have a responsibility to protect our residents, businesses, roads, and other facilities from the costs and damage associated with rising sea levels. Our taxpayers should not be burdened with those costs when the damage is being caused by greenhouse gas pollution from these fossil fuel companies’ products,” plaintiffs said in a joint statement. “They have known about the damage their products cause for nearly 50 years, and they not only failed to warn people about it, but they actively worked to deceive the public, press, and policymakers about those impacts.”

Regardless of the forum that is ultimately selected, the cases would proceed under state common law. Defendants are resolute in their belief that they have a right to a federal forum, and will likely seek an appeal if the cases are remanded to state court. At the conclusion of the San Mateo hearing, BP lawyer Jonathan Hughes requested the court grant a stay on mailing a remand order so defendants could proceed with an appeal, if necessary.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: California Climate Lawsuits, Liability Litigation

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Trackbacks

  1. A California Judge May Have Just Sunk All Those Climate Lawsuits Against Energy Companies | CauseACTION says:
    March 1, 2018 at 12:47 am

    […] venue of three other lawsuits against energy companies are currently being considered by California District Court Judge Vince Chhabria. No indication of when Chhabria’s ruling […]

  2. A California Judge May Have Just Sunk All Those Climate Lawsuits Against Energy Companies | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) says:
    March 1, 2018 at 5:05 am

    […] venue of three other lawsuits against energy companies are currently being considered by California District Court Judge Vince Chhabria. No indication of when Chhabria’s ruling […]

  3. San Francisco, Oakland climate cases to stay in federal court, judge rules says:
    March 1, 2018 at 7:31 am

    […] In California Climate Cases, Jurisdictional Battle Takes Center Stage […]

  4. These communities sued Big Oil over climate change; then the backlash began – MassCentral BETA says:
    March 5, 2018 at 2:16 pm

    […] a separate federal judge who is hearing the Marin and San Mateo case, Vince Chhabria, was somewhat skeptical at a recent hearing about the oil industry’s arguments. His ruling is expected as early as this week, which could […]

  5. Climate tutorial ordered by Calif. judge adds new wrinkle to liability case says:
    March 15, 2018 at 2:53 pm

    […] of Imperial Beach) should be remanded back to state court, which many predict he will do, making the jurisdictional issues in these cases even more intriguing. […]

  6. Why states may turn the tide in climate liability suits, led by Rhode Island says:
    September 11, 2018 at 8:23 am

    […] related impacts had all come from cities or counties. Almost all are in a jurisdictional battle, striving to stay in state courts where they believe the law will be more favorable, instead of federal court, where the industry […]

  7. States, organizations, scientists urge keeping climate suits in state court says:
    January 31, 2019 at 10:59 am

    […] issue under appeal centers around jurisdiction. The communities and their supporters want the suits heard in state court, where they believe they […]

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Latest News

Justice Dept. to Argue on Side of Oil Companies in Supreme Court Hearing

By Karen Savage The acting solicitor general will be allowed time to argue in support of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP and nearly two dozen other companies next week during oral arguments before … [Read More...]

Recent Posts

  • Colorado Judge Rejects Oil Companies’ Attempt to Move Climate Case
  • Biden’s DOJ Could Help Swing Momentum Around Climate Cases
  • Supreme Court Questions Oil Companies’ Tactics to Shake Climate Cases
  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?

Most Popular

  • Climate Case Gets Green Light from European Union Court
  • BP Accused of 'Greenwashing' and Deceiving Public With Renewable Energy Ads
  • Toronto Will Explore Suing Big Oil for Climate Costs
  • Dutch Court Upholds Urgenda, Says Government Must Reduce Emissions
  • What Oil Companies Knew About Climate Change and When: A Timeline

Categories

  • Access to Courts
  • Baltimore Lawsuit
  • California Climate Lawsuits
  • Charleston, S.C. Lawsuit
  • Colorado Lawsuit
  • Connecticut Lawsuit
  • Delaware Lawsuit
  • Exxon Climate Investigation
  • Featured
  • Hoboken Lawsuit
  • International
  • Latest News
  • Liability Litigation
  • Liability Waivers
  • Mass. v. Exxon
  • Minnesota Lawsuit
  • New York City Lawsuit
  • Other Suits
  • Politics
  • Rhode Island Lawsuit
  • State Legislation
  • Uncategorized
  • Washington DC Lawsuit

Follow us

  • View climatedocket’s profile on Facebook
  • View climatedocket’s profile on Twitter

RSS

RSS Feed RSS - Posts

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.