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 / San Francisco, Oakland Climate Cases to Stay in Federal Court, Judge Rules
San Francisco, Oakland Climate Cases to Stay in Federal Court, Judge Rules

San Francisco, Oakland Climate Cases to Stay in Federal Court, Judge Rules

March 1, 2018 Filed Under: California Climate Lawsuits, Liability Litigation

print
By Dana Drugmand

In the first of two expected decisions on whether to send the California climate liability lawsuits back to state court, a federal district judge sided with the fossil fuel defendants in keeping the San Francisco and Oakland cases in federal court.

Judge William Alsup issued his order on Tuesday denying the plaintiffs’ motion to remand the cases back to state court, following a Feb. 8 hearing at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco. The judge rejected the cities’ argument that their claims arise under California public nuisance law, finding instead that federal common law applies in global warming cases.

“Taking the complaints at face value, the scope of the worldwide predicament demands the most comprehensive view available, which in our American court system means our federal courts and our federal common law,” Alsup wrote.

This contrasts with a separate hearing on similar cases brought by the counties of San Mateo, Marin and the city of Imperial Beach on Feb. 15, in which Judge Vince Chhabria was openly skeptical of the oil companies’ arguments and seemed ready to send those cases back to state court.

It also conflicts with previous findings that there is no federal common law in these cases because the Clean Air Act displaces global warming nuisance claims. Both AEP v. Connecticut in 2011 and Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil et al. in 2012 determined that plaintiffs’ federal common law nuisance claims against large fossil fuel emitters were displaced by the federal air pollution statute, which authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate emissions.

But Alsup decided displacement does not apply in this case because the conduct complained of is global in scope. “Plaintiffs do not bring claims against emitters, but rather bring claims against defendants for having put fossil fuels into the flow of international commerce,” he wrote. “Importantly, unlike AEP and Kivalina, which sought only to reach domestic conduct, plaintiffs’ claims here attack behavior worldwide…Here, 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.”

According to Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, this is a notable decision.

“This decision holds that there is a federal common law public nuisance claim that applies to these lawsuits, and that that claim has not been displaced by the Clean Air Act, or by the Supreme Court’s earlier climate change decisions,” he said. “This is not the result that the plaintiffs sought, but it is quite a result nonetheless.”

Alsup did certify his decision for interlocutory appeal, meaning that plaintiffs are allowed to challenge his ruling in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“We think Judge Alsup’s decision is incorrect and, as he acknowledged, there is substantial ground for a difference of opinion about the role (jf any) of federal common law in these disputes. That’s why we have courts of appeals,” said Vic Sher, one of the attorneys representing the counties of Marin and San Mateo and the city of Imperial Beach. Those cases await a decision on remand from Chhabria, who all but dismissed the fossil fuel defendants’ argument that federal common law applies during his remand hearing on Feb. 15.

“We’re not going to debate it, because we already know that there’s not a federal common law claim,” Judge Chhabria said in questioning Chevron lawyer Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. “Federal common law in this area no longer exists because Congress has displaced it with legislation.”

Vermont Law School professor Pat Parenteau said it seemed clear that Judge Chhabria would send the cases back to state court, since he had few questions for the plaintiffs’ counsel at the hearing. If that happens, it would set up a conflict for the appeals court.

“San Francisco and Oakland will take it up with the Ninth Circuit,” Parenteau said. “In the meantime, the decision in [San Mateo, San Marin and Imperial Beach] case will come down and be appealed by the defendants, and both of those actions will be consolidated by the Ninth Circuit and teed up for briefing and argument sometime this year.”

Parenteau said he believes the Ninth Circuit will ultimately move the cases back to state court.

“I still think the odds are they are going to go back to state court,” he said. “And they should. I don’t think there’s any federal question at all. I think there’s been attempts to manufacture federal questions. So the Ninth Circuit will sort this out and decide there really is no federal nexus. These are public nuisance cases under state law, period.”

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. San Francisco, Oakland Climate Cases to Stay in Federal Court, Judge Rules – Oakland News Online, Oakland, California News – Oakland Blog says:
    March 1, 2018 at 11:34 am

    […] San Francisco, Oakland Climate Cases to Stay in Federal Court, Judge Rules Climate Liability News […]

  2. These communities sued Big Oil over climate change; then the backlash began – MassCentral BETA says:
    March 5, 2018 at 2:15 pm

    […] Court judge in San Francisco, William Alsup, ruled that the Oakland and San Francisco lawsuits must be heard in federal court, a potential setback for the […]

  3. Alsup asks for answers – No Comment Diary says:
    March 11, 2018 at 11:12 pm

    […] of you might have read about the lawsuit by a number of municipalities (including San Francisco and Oakland) against the major oil companies […]

  4. Alsup asks for answers – Climate, Forests & Woodlands says:
    March 12, 2018 at 4:09 pm

    […] of you might have read about the lawsuit by a number of municipalities (including San Francisco and Oakland) against the major oil companies […]

  5. Climate tutorial ordered by Calif. judge adds new wrinkle to liability case says:
    March 15, 2018 at 10:29 am

    […] San Francisco, Oakland Climate Cases to Stay in Federal Court, Judge Rules […]

  6. Correlazione o causalità - Ocasapiens - Blog - Repubblica.it says:
    March 20, 2018 at 3:36 pm

    […] alle otto domande sul clima del giudice William Alsup, prima di ascoltare le parti in causa nel processo di  San Francisco, Oakland ecc. vs. BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil e Royal Dutch Shell. […]

  7. Alsup asks for answers - Find Climate Answers says:
    March 23, 2018 at 10:33 pm

    […] of you might have read about the lawsuit by a number of municipalities (including San Francisco and Oakland) against the major oil companies […]

  8. Latest climate change lawsuit against Big Oil comes from Seattle says:
    May 10, 2018 at 10:59 am

    […] the Seattle-based law firm Hagens Berman, which is also involved in the climate liability suits filed by San Francisco and Oakland and also worked on cases that led to the historic settlement against the tobacco industry in the […]

  9. Trump administration brief opposes california climate suits says:
    May 15, 2018 at 4:01 pm

    […] by the cities to move the suits to state court was thwarted when U.S. District Judge William Alsup decided in February that the proceedings should remain in federal court, ruling that federal common law applies in the […]

  10. California climate cases head to pivotal hearing: Here's what could happen says:
    May 23, 2018 at 12:43 pm

    […] decided in March to keep in the cases in federal court, but gave the cities direction on how they might succeed, despite previous federal cases that […]

  11. Federal judge grants discovery in 2 California climate cases says:
    May 24, 2018 at 6:56 pm

    […] of dollars of current and future impacts. They were originally filed in state court, but Alsup has kept them in federal court, and so far has avoided falling back on previous court rulings that have squelched federal climate […]

  12. Federal judge to decide fate of NYC climate lawsuit says:
    June 13, 2018 at 5:26 pm

    […] in California earlier this year. One of them, U.S. District Judge Williams Alsup opted to keep the lawsuits filed by San Francisco and Oakland in federal court while the second judge, Vince Chhabria, sent the suits filed by San Mateo and Marin counties and […]

  13. After dismissal of San Francisco, Oakland climate suits, what lies ahead? says:
    June 27, 2018 at 10:18 pm

    […] court last year, the oil companies petitioned to move them to federal court. In February,  Alsup decided the case should stay in federal court. Alsup said then that federal common law must govern the nuisance claim, despite those previous […]

  14. King County pauses climate liability suit pending California appeals says:
    October 18, 2018 at 3:47 pm

    […] the defendants to federal court, where Judge William Alsup in the Northern District of California rejected motions by the cities to move the cases back to state […]

  15. Netherlands group to Shell: Stop wrecking the climate or we will sue says:
    October 24, 2018 at 8:43 pm

    […] which is the model used in climate suits filed against fossil fuel companies by New York City and several California […]

  16. Judge rules against Big Oil, sends Baltimore climate suit to state court says:
    June 11, 2019 at 11:58 pm

    […] cases filed by Oakland and San Francisco in June 2018. Alsup had previously ruled that the case should be heard in his court because federal law pre-empted state law regarding climate change. Hollander wrote that Alsup’s […]

  17. Calif. communities fight oil companies' attempt to consolidate climate suits says:
    July 16, 2019 at 11:03 pm

    […] oil giants moved the case to federal court, but unlike Chhabria, Alsup ruled last year that the suits filed by San Francisco and Oakland, sometimes referred to as the Alsup […]

  18. Baltimore climate suit proceeds in state court as oil companies appeal says:
    August 1, 2019 at 4:50 pm

    […] have agreed the cases should be decided by state courts, while one federal judge in California decided last year that San Francisco and Oakland’s suits belong in federal court, and then dismissed […]

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

  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?
  • Justice Dept. to Argue on Side of Oil Companies in Supreme Court Hearing
  • Oil Companies Ask Supreme Court to Decide Jurisdiction of More Climate Cases
  • Climate Suits Grew in 2020, Could Clear Huge Hurdle in 2021

Most Popular

  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?
  • Hawaii Joins Trend: Recognizes Constitutional Right to Safe Climate and Environment
  • Carbon Majors Can Be Held Liable for Human Rights Violations, Philippines Commission Rules
  • R.I. Wins Battle to Keep Climate Suit Vs. Big Oil in State Court
  • Study Estimates Seawalls to Protect U.S. Coast Will Cost $400 Billion

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.