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 / Baltimore Argues Climate Case Should Proceed As Oil Companies Appeal
Baltimore Argues Climate Case Should Proceed As Oil Companies Appeal

Baltimore Argues Climate Case Should Proceed As Oil Companies Appeal

August 20, 2019 Filed Under: Baltimore Lawsuit, Liability Litigation

print

By Karen Savage

Baltimore says its climate liability lawsuit against ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and 23 other fossil fuel companies should proceed while the Fourth Circuit considers an appeal of a lower court ruling that the case belongs in state court.

A federal judge ruled in June that Baltimore’s suit should be heard in state court where it was filed. The defendant companies appealed that decision and earlier this month filed a motion to stay the case pending the outcome of their appeal, saying they will be irreparably harmed if the case is allowed to continue in state court.

Baltimore alleges in the suit, filed in 2018, that the companies knew for decades that fossil fossil fuels drive climate change but deliberately failed to inform the public about those risks. The city is charging the companies with eight legal violations, including public nuisance, private nuisance, failure to warn and violations of Maryland’s consumer protection laws. 

The city maintains that the companies won’t be harmed because the case will proceed—either in state or federal court—and they would be required to respond to the same discovery.

“The district court even agreed that proceeding in state court while the appeal is pending ‘may well advance the resolution of the case,’” Baltimore’s attorneys wrote in opposition to halting the suit’s progress . “No incremental burden—much less irreparable injury—results from discovery incepting in a Maryland state court rather than a federal court.”

The issue under appeal is whether the suit will proceed in federal or state court, a jurisdictional battle that has been central to climate liability suits filed by communities across the country. Communities are trying to get the cases heard in state court under state laws. Fossil fuel company defendants are fighting to put them in federal court, where previous climate-related cases have been decided largely in the industry’s favor.

In California, the counties of Marin, San Mateo and Santa Cruz, along with the cities of Imperial Beach, Santa Cruz and Richmond won an earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, who decided the suits belong in state court. San Francisco and Oakland had their cases dismissed after U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled that their cases, which involve claims similar to those of the other municipalities, belong in federal court. The rulings have all been appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

Baltimore contends that “although defendants argue that a stay would avoid costly and potentially duplicative litigation, the truth is their current appeal ‘may be a fruitless exercise, costing the parties time and money that could otherwise be spent litigating the merits.’”

Baltimore, which has about 60 miles of coastline, says it is already experiencing sea level rise and flooding related to climate change. The city also says its residents are suffering health effects related to other climate impacts, including more intense heat waves and extreme precipitation.

The fossil fuel companies maintain their right to appeal the lower court’s decision would be “rendered meaningless” if the case is not stayed and say they would be unjustly burdened if the case were to proceed in state court.

“Nothing that occurs in state court upon remand could moot or even affect” the oil companies’ appeal, Baltimore wrote in its opposing brief.

“The City’s case has now been sent back to where it belongs—state court—and the public interest requires that it proceed there.”

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: Baltimore Lawsuit, 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.
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.