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 / Oil Companies, Denied Stay in Colorado Climate Case, Keep Trying
Oil Companies, Denied Stay in Colorado Climate Case, Keep Trying

Oil Companies, Denied Stay in Colorado Climate Case, Keep Trying

October 9, 2019 Filed Under: Colorado Lawsuit, Liability Litigation

print

By Karen Savage

After a U.S. District Court judge rejected attempts by Exxon and Suncor to halt a climate liability suit in Colorado twice in less than 24 hours, the companies filed an emergency motion with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

The oil companies are aiming to pause the proceedings—including discovery—while they try to convince the appellate court that the case belongs in federal court.

The city and county of Boulder and the county of San Miguel allege that Exxon and Suncor knew for decades that their products contributed to climate change, but deliberately downplayed the risk to policymakers and the public. 

In the suit, filed last year, the communities assert state law claims of public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass, unjust enrichment, violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and civil conspiracy. They are seeking to force the companies to help pay for the costs of climate change impacts.

As fossil fuel companies have in climate-related public nuisance suits filed by municipalities across the country, Exxon and Suncor immediately moved the suit to federal court, where precedent has favored them.

U.S. District Court Judge William J. Martinez remanded the suits back to state court in September. The oil companies then appealed to the Tenth Circuit and asked the lower court to stay, or pause, the proceedings pending the appellate court’s decision. 

In their motion to stay, Exxon and Suncor cited two cases—American Electric Power v. Connecticut and Kivalina v. Exxon—when attempting to persuade the court that their appeal is likely to succeed, a criteria that must be met before a stay can be granted. 

Martinez rejected the companies’ reliance on those cases, and in an order issued late Monday, wrote that plaintiffs in Kivalina and American Electric Power “expressly invoked federal claims, unlike this case which involves only state law claims asserted in state court, and those cases appear to be inapplicable.”

Martinez also rejected assertions by Suncor and Exxon that they would be irreparably harmed if the case proceeds, writing that “claims in this case were filed over a year ago,” and adding that “the public interest is furthered by the timely conclusion of legal disputes.”

Exxon and Suncor early on Tuesday filed for an emergency motion to stay the case, which Martinez rejected by mid-morning, noting that the companies’ initial motion had been denied in the order he issued the night before and writing that the new motion “is a motion for reconsideration of that order in all but name only.”

Marco Simons, general counsel for EarthRights, which is representing the municipalities, said Martinez’s refusal to halt the case is a significant victory for the communities and their residents.

“Judge Martinez appropriately returned this case to state court without further delay,” Simons said in a statement. “This sends a definitive message to oil companies like ExxonMobil and Suncor that they cannot avoid justice in the local courts of the communities that their actions have harmed.” 

EarthRights, along with the Niskanen Center and Denver attorney Kevin Hannon, are working on behalf of the Colorado communities.

The oil companies later on Tuesday filed another emergency motion to stay, this time with the Tenth Circuit. The court has ordered the municipalities to file a response to that motion by Oct. 18.

Exxon and Suncor did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

“We welcome this development as a critical step forward in alleviating the financial burden that climate change is imposing on communities in Colorado,” Simons said. 

“It is not fair for those costs to fall on taxpayers, particularly when these corporations profited from contributing to the climate crisis.” 

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: Colorado 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.

Trackbacks

  1. Oil companies ask Supreme Court to pre-empt Colorado's climate case says:
    October 21, 2019 at 8:29 pm

    […] Oil Companies, Denied Stay in Colorado Climate Case, Keep Trying […]

  2. Baltimore argues Supreme Court should let climate case proceed says:
    October 22, 2019 at 3:51 pm

    […] Oil Companies, Denied Stay in Colorado Climate Case, Keep Trying […]

  3. Big Oil Again Asks Ninth Circuit to Halt California Climate Cases - The Climate Docket says:
    August 11, 2020 at 11:15 am

    […] ruling, federal judges have sent cases filed by Baltimore, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and several Colorado municipalities back to state court. With the exception of the Rhode Island case, which is still under review, […]

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

  • 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?
  • 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

Most Popular

  • Vulnerable Nations Call for Ecocide to Be Recognized As an International Crime
  • U.S. Government Knew Climate Risks in 1970s, Energy Advisory Group Documents Show
  • Why a Tidal Wave of Climate Lawsuits Looms Over the Fossil Fuel Industry
  • New Research Tying 20 Companies to One-Third of Global Emissions Aids Liability Argument
  • Carbon Capture: Will It Save the Climate, or the Fossil Fuel Industry?

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.