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 / California Climate Lawsuits / Federal Judge Dismisses San Francisco, Oakland Climate Suits
Federal Judge Dismisses San Francisco, Oakland Climate Suits

Federal Judge Dismisses San Francisco, Oakland Climate Suits

June 26, 2018 Filed Under: California Climate Lawsuits

print
By Dana Drugmand

A federal judge in California has dismissed the San Francisco and Oakland climate liability lawsuits against five major oil companies, dealing the first major blow to the wave of climate suits that have been filed by communities across the country over the past year.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup granted the oil companies’ motion to dismiss on Monday. The problem of global warming, he determined, is too vast in scope to deem just five companies liable and he said resolving it is best left to the executive and legislative branches of government.

The ruling came one month after a court hearing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Following that hearing, Alsup ordered both sides to submit briefs on the question of whether the court must balance the utility and benefit of fossil fuels against their negative consequences. The cities argued that they are not seeking to halt or regulate the oil companies’ conduct, so the court did not have to consider the benefit of producing and selling fossil fuels. Alsup ultimately disagreed.

“This is obviously not the ruling we wanted, but this doesn’t mean the case is over,” said John Coté, press secretary for the San Francisco City Attorney’s office. “We’re reviewing the order and will decide on our next steps shortly.”

If the cities appeal, it would be to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In his decision, Alsup said that liability for public nuisance involves an “unreasonable” interference, and determining if defendants behaved unreasonably “involves the weighing of the gravity of the harm against the utility of the conduct.”

Alsup said the defendants’ conduct was not unreasonable because everyone has benefitted from fossil fuels.

“Our industrial revolution and the development of our modern world has literally been fueled by oil and coal. Without those fuels, virtually all of our monumental progress would have been impossible. All of us have benefitted,” Alsup wrote. “Having reaped the benefit of that historic progress, would it really be fair to now ignore our own responsibility in the use of fossil fuels and place the blame for global warming on those who supplied what we demanded? Is it really fair, in light of those benefits, to say the sale of fossil fuels was unreasonable?”

In a news release responding to the ruling, Chevron made a similar point referencing the “necessity” of fossil fuels and said climate change requires “constructive discussion.”

“Reliable, affordable energy is not a public nuisance but a public necessity,” said R. Hewitt Pate, Chevron’s vice president and general counsel. “Tackling the difficult international policy issues of climate change requires honest and constructive discussion. Using lawsuits to vilify the men and women who provide the energy we all need is neither honest nor constructive.”

Alsup also said that balancing the negative impacts of fossil fuels against their benefits to society is beyond the role of the courts.

“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.”

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)—an industry trade group that has vigorously opposed these climate lawsuits—praised Alsup’s ruling.

“From the moment these baseless lawsuits were filed, we have argued that the courtroom was not the proper venue to address this global challenge,” said Jay Timmons, chief executive of NAM. “Judge Alsup agreed. Other municipalities around the country who have filed similar lawsuits should take note as those complaints are likely to end the same way.”

Lawsuits from 11 other communities are in various stages in federal and state courts across the country. Suits by three other California communities were recently remanded to state court. A federal judge in New York recently heard oil company arguments for dismissal of New York City’s climate suit.

Despite Monday’s setback, the issue is far from settled.

Coté said San Francisco and Oakland’s cases have already succeeded in forcing the fossil fuel companies to acknowledge the science of climate change, which they have long worked to undermine. In March, Alsup held a landmark courtroom tutorial on climate science, during which the oil companies said they agreed with the consensus of the International Panel on Climate Change, which for decades has shown that global warming is driven overwhelmingly by the burning of fossil fuels.

“We’re pleased that the court recognized that the science of global warming is no longer in dispute. Our litigation forced a public court proceeding on climate science, and now these companies can no longer deny it is real and valid,” Coté said. “Our belief remains that these companies are liable for the harm they’ve caused.”

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

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. California Judge Dismisses Two Climate Liability Lawsuits Against Oil Companies - Find Climate Answers says:
    June 27, 2018 at 2:13 am

    […] Francisco against five major oil companies for their role in driving climate change, according to several news outlets. The decision is the first significant blow to the surge in climate liability lawsuits […]

  2. Elizabeth Rush, Rising & Lynn Zinsser of Climate Liability News says:
    June 27, 2018 at 7:52 pm

    […] Zinsser On June 25, a federal judge threw out a lawsuit brought by San Francisco and Oakland against fossil fuel companies over the costs of dealing with […]

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

    […] Federal Judge Dismisses San Francisco, Oakland Climate Suits […]

  4. R.I. becomes first state to file climate suit vs. oil companies says:
    July 2, 2018 at 3:49 pm

    […] Federal Judge Dismisses San Francisco, Oakland Climate Suits […]

  5. New York City climate suit dismissed by federal judge says:
    July 19, 2018 at 9:56 pm

    […] fuel companies fighting these climate suits in federal court. Late last month, Judge William Alsup dismissed the lawsuit brought by Oakland and San Francisco against the same five defendants in U.S. District Court in San […]

  6. Despite two dismissals, climate liability lawsuits only just getting started says:
    August 2, 2018 at 11:54 am

    […] science “tutorial” in March and heard the fossil fuel companies’ motion to dismiss in May, he dismissed the case on June […]

  7. As wildfires rage in California, so does the battle over who pays says:
    August 16, 2018 at 9:20 am

    […] the companies accountable for climate impacts has been a tough road so far. In June, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuits from San Francisco and Oakland, ruling that the five fossil fuel defendants shouldn’t be held […]

  8. L’État de Rhode Island poursuit les entreprises pétrolières et gazières à cause de leur impact sur le réchauffement climatique malgré l’échec de telles poursuites en Californie | Droit de l'entreprise says:
    August 21, 2018 at 4:21 pm

    […] San Francisco, Oakland Climate Suits », Climate Liability News, 26 juin 2018, en ligne : <https://www.climatedocket.com/2018/06/26/san-francisco-oakland-climates-suits-alsup/&gt; (consulté le 18 juillet […]

  9. Why states may turn the tide in climate liability suits, led by Rhode Island says:
    September 11, 2018 at 8:24 am

    […] said that the cases recently dismissed by federal judges—those filed by New York, San Francisco and Oakland—were not judged on the basis of strict liability claims because those claims weren’t included […]

  10. King County pauses climate liability suit pending California appeals says:
    October 18, 2018 at 3:48 pm

    […] eventually dismissed the claims, ruling that nuisance claims arise under federal, not state, common law. He also said the problem […]

  11. Rhode Island argues to keep its climate suit in state court says:
    February 7, 2019 at 10:37 am

    […] proved successful for the oil companies in another recent case. U.S. District Judge William Alsup dismissed similar liability cases by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland against five oil companies largely because he said […]

  12. L’État de Rhode Island poursuit les entreprises pétrolières et gazières à cause de leur impact sur le réchauffement climatique malgré l’échec de telles poursuites en Californie | Droit de l'entreprise says:
    February 13, 2019 at 11:08 am

    […] Francisco, Oakland Climate Suits », Climate Liability News, 26 juin 2018, en ligne : <https://www.climatedocket.com/2018/06/26/san-francisco-oakland-climates-suits-alsup/&gt; (consulté le 18 juillet […]

  13. San Francisco, Oakland appeal dismissal of climate lawsuits says:
    March 13, 2019 at 10:28 pm

    […] his dismissal, Alsup said the problem of climate change is too vast in scope to hold just five companies liable and said […]

  14. Democratic state AGs rally behind San Francisco, Oakland climate suits says:
    March 20, 2019 at 11:19 pm

    […] BP and Chevron, accountable for damages caused by climate change. U.S. District Judge William Alsup dismissed the cities’ cases last year. San Francisco and Oakland appealed the ruling and last week submitted briefs urging the […]

  15. San Franscisco, Oakland receive wide support in climate suit says:
    March 27, 2019 at 11:07 pm

    […] briefs were filed in support of the cities’ appeal to the Ninth Circuit, trying to reverse the cases’ dismissal by U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup last year. Alsup said the courts should not decide […]

  16. Oil industry supporters argue cities cannot sue for climate liability says:
    May 22, 2019 at 3:16 pm

    […] and Royal Dutch Shell. Defendants removed it to federal court and U.S. District Judge William Alsup dismissed the case in June 2018. The cities recently appealed Alsup’s ruling and submitted their brief in March, […]

  17. S.F., Oakland to Ninth Circuit: Our climate suits belong in state court says:
    July 9, 2019 at 5:00 pm

    […] also said the problem of climate change is too vast to hold just five companies liable. He said the executive […]

  18. First tobacco, then opioids: Will climate change be the next liability battle? says:
    September 12, 2019 at 3:02 pm

    […] by their products. U.S. District Judge William Alsup fell into that same legal pothole when he dismissed suits filed by Oakland and San Francisco because the problem was too big to blame on a handful of […]

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
  • Tiny Pacific Island Could File First National Climate Liability Suit
  • Carbon Majors Can Be Held Liable for Human Rights Violations, Philippines Commission Rules
  • 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.