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 / New York City Climate Suit Dismissed by Federal Judge
New York City Climate Suit Dismissed by Federal Judge

New York City Climate Suit Dismissed by Federal Judge

July 19, 2018 Filed Under: Liability Litigation, New York City Lawsuit

print
By Dana Drugmand

A federal judge ruled in favor of five major oil companies on Thursday, dismissing New York City’s climate liability lawsuit against them.

U.S. District Judge John Keenan’s ruling marks the second major victory for the fossil 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 Francisco.

New York City’s complaint, filed in January, included claims of public nuisance, private nuisance and trespass and sought monetary damages from BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell to help pay for the costs of protecting the city from climate impacts.

New York officials said they would appeal the ruling.

Like Alsup, Keenan found that the courts are not the proper forum to address harms resulting from climate change and greenhouse gas pollution, saying it’s an issue for the executive and legislative branches to tackle.

“There is a grave irony here. The fossil fuel company defendants claimed in court—and the judge apparently agreed—that it is entirely up to Congress and the President to address climate change. But these same defendants and their trade groups have fought successfully against even modest laws and regulations to cut the carbon pollution from burning fossil fuels that causes global warming,” Ken Kimmel, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists said in a statement. “My grandmother would have called this ‘chutzpah’ and lawyers call it ‘unclean hands,’ but no matter what you call it, the court should not have let these companies off the hook with this defense.”

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) welcomed the outcome. “From the moment this baseless lawsuit was filed, manufacturers have argued that the courtroom was not the proper venue to address this global challenge,” NAM president Jay Timmons said in a statement. “Judge Keenan made that clear in his decision today. Now that San Francisco, Oakland and New York City have had their cases dismissed, the other municipalities should withdraw their complaints to save taxpayer resources and focus on meaningful solutions.”

The other cases around the country, however, including one that will be announced on Friday by the city of Baltimore, are being filed in state court, so the reasoning of Alsup and Keenan will not necessarily apply.

Keenan said that federal common law governs the city’s claims, and therefore, the Clean Air Act displaces those claims. The Clean Air Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, which is the reasoning behind the failure of previous federal cases, including AEP v. Connecticut (2011) and Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil (2012).

Keenan also said that because the city has benefitted from fossil fuels, a point emphasized by the oil companies in their hearing in front of Keenan, the city is culpable for climate change as well. “As an initial matter, it is not clear that Defendants’ fossil fuel production and the emissions created therefrom have been an ‘unlawful invasion’ in New York City, as the City benefits from and participates in the use of fossil fuels as a source of power, and has done so for many decades,” Keenan wrote.

Also like Alsup, Keenan avoided the issue of climate damages, which was the basis for New York’s complaint.

“It is also important to note that this suit was not focused on ‘solving’ global warming,” Kimmel said. “The suit sought to compensate New York City for the damages it has already suffered and will incur down the road. The climate threats facing New York City are overwhelming, and taxpayers are already paying to protect the city from future Sandy-scale damages.

Keenan dismissed the suit in its entirety with prejudice, meaning the city may not bring the same claim again.

New York officials, however, say they stand by the conviction that fossil fuel companies are liable for the harms their product has created.

“The Mayor believes big polluters must be held accountable for their contributions to climate change and the damage it will cause New York City. We intend to appeal this decision and to keep fighting for New Yorkers who will bear the brunt of climate change,” said Seth Stein, spokesman for the NYC Mayor’s Office.

San Francisco and Oakland have yet to announce if they will appeal Alsup’s decision.

Meanwhile, other climate liability lawsuits are pending in courts in California, King County, Wash., Colorado, and Rhode Island.

According to Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, the New York City decision does not determine the outcome of the other cases.

“It does show that Judge Alsup’s decision has resonated with at least one other judge, and I wouldn’t be surprised if other judges also find the reasoning persuasive,” he said. “But there is at least one other court that found the exact opposite, namely that state public nuisance claims are available.”

That would be Judge Vince Chhabria, who decided that state law should govern the claims brought by Marin and San Mateo counties and the city of Imperial Beach. The fossil fuel companies are appealing that decision.

The jurisdiction issue may be the key factor in determining the success of these suits.

“The cases that are either filed in federal court or—as with the San Francisco and Oakland cases—removed to federal court are decided under federal law,” said Ann Carlson, professor of environmental law and co-director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at UCLA School of Law. “Federal nuisance law is much less favorable for the cities and counties than state law is. The state courts are where we are likely to see interesting and perhaps surprising rulings.”

Keenan, however, rejected the possibility that the city could bring its claims under state common law. “Given the interstate nature of these claims, it would thus be illogical to allow the City to bring state law claims when courts have found that these matters are areas of federal concern that have been delegated to the Executive Branch as they require a uniform, national solution,” he said in the ruling.

Keenan also followed Alsup’s lead in determining that holding foreign companies liable (as Shell and BP are headquartered outside the U.S.) and weighing liability for worldwide emissions would raise foreign policy implications. “To litigate such an action for injuries from foreign greenhouse gas emissions in federal court would severely infringe upon the foreign-policy decisions that are squarely within the purview of the political branches of the U.S. Government,” Keenan wrote. “Accordingly, the Court will exercise appropriate caution and decline to recognize such a cause of action.”

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: Liability Litigation, New York City Lawsuit

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. New York City climate suit dismissed by federal judge | Plan B says:
    July 20, 2018 at 3:32 am

    […] Source: New York City climate suit dismissed by federal judge […]

  2. Baltimore becomes latest city to sue oil industry for climate damages says:
    July 20, 2018 at 2:21 pm

    […] New York City Climate Suit Dismissed by Federal Judge […]

  3. Despite two dismissals, climate liability lawsuits only just getting started says:
    August 2, 2018 at 11:50 am

    […] New York City Climate Suit Dismissed by Federal Judge […]

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

  5. NYC files appeal, challenges dismissal of climate liability suit says:
    November 12, 2018 at 7:22 pm

    […] Act, it would use state law claims, an argument that Keenan rejected as “illogical.” He dismissed the suit with prejudice, meaning the city may not bring the same claim […]

  6. NYC climate suit draws support from governments, law expert says:
    November 16, 2018 at 5:45 pm

    […] District Judge John Keenan dismissed the suit in July, ruling that the city’s claims are covered under federal law, but involve greenhouse gas […]

  7. Oil companies fighting NYC climate suit ignore liability issue says:
    February 11, 2019 at 3:12 pm

    […] brief rehashes many of the arguments that successfully convinced U.S. District Judge John Keenan to dismiss the city’s case last year, emphasizing the “sweeping” nature of climate change and sidestepping the question of […]

  8. Federal government backs oil companies fighting NYC climate suit says:
    March 11, 2019 at 3:49 pm

    […] city filed the case against the five oil giants in January 2018 and it was dismissed by U.S. District Court Judge John Keenan last July. The city appealed that decision to the Second […]

  9. NY Attorney General Defies Judge’s Order in Exxon Case | Watts Up With That? says:
    March 14, 2019 at 8:00 pm

    […] of New York state.”The city filed the case against the five oil giants in January 2018 and it was dismissed by U.S. District Court Judge John Keenan last July. The city appealed that decision to the […]

  10. NYC to appeals court: Climate case does not seek to regulate emissions says:
    June 1, 2020 at 10:42 pm

    […] Keenan also rejected the city’s contention that state law claims apply as “illogical” and dismissed the suit with prejudice, meaning the city may not bring the same claim […]

  11. Chevron: California Ruling Should Not Help NY Revive Its Liability Suit - The Climate Docket says:
    June 18, 2020 at 12:51 pm

    […] Second Circuit is considering New York City’s appeal of a federal judge’s decision to throw out its liability suit against  BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Royal Dutch Shell. […]

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

  • BP Accused of 'Greenwashing' and Deceiving Public With Renewable Energy Ads
  • What Oil Companies Knew About Climate Change and When: A Timeline
  • Judge Agrees to Divest from Exxon Before New York's Climate Fraud Case
  • Youth Climate Case in Washington State Dismissed by King County Judge
  • Battling for Big Oil: Manufacturing Trade Group Leads Assault on Climate Suits

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.