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 / NYC to Appeals Court: Our Climate Case Does Not Seek to Regulate Emissions
NYC to Appeals Court: Our Climate Case Does Not Seek to Regulate Emissions

NYC to Appeals Court: Our Climate Case Does Not Seek to Regulate Emissions

November 22, 2019 Filed Under: Liability Litigation, New York City Lawsuit

print

By Karen Savage

A lower court’s decision to dismiss New York City’s climate liability suit against five major oil companies should be reversed, argued attorney John Moore, who presented the city’s appeal before a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday.

Moore said the U.S. District Court judge misinterpreted the case, which is not an attempt to regulate the company’s greenhouse gas emissions as that judge ruled, but rather an attempt to hold the oil giants liable for damage done to the city by their products.

New York, which filed its lawsuit in 2018 against BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Royal Dutch Shell, is seeking billions in damages to cover infrastructure improvements needed to protect its residents from the increasing effects of climate change. The suit includes federal claims of public nuisance, private nuisance and trespass and seeks monetary damages to help pay for the costs of protecting the city. 

U.S. District Judge John Keenan ruled last year that the city’s claims are covered under federal law, but involve greenhouse gas emissions that cross state lines. That puts them under the jurisdiction of the Clean Air Act, which authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. 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 again.

“The city is not seeking to impose regulations,” Moore told the appellate court, but rather seeking to hold the oil giants responsible for the damage done to the climate and to New York City.

The city has argued that if its claims are displaced by the Clean Air Act, it would use state law claims.

When consumers use fossil fuel products as intended, they release carbon into the atmosphere, causing sea level rise and other climate impacts that are harming the city, Moore said. He added that the suit is not seeking liability for the companies’ direct emissions, nor is it an attempt to prevent them from engaging in their business operations.

The city contends that its claims fall under established legal principles, including nuisance laws that hold manufacturers liable for selling products they know will cause harm. Moore told the court the city’s suit is similar to asbestos, tobacco and lead paint liability suits in which companies have been held liable for damage done by the use of their products.

Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., a Chevron attorney, who argued on behalf of the fossil fuel defendants, said the city is asking the court to regulate emissions by endorsing a “sweeping world-wide tort that no court has ever recognized.”

The companies contend the dismissal should stand because the city’s claims are covered under federal law, which does not provide a remedy for relief of those claims.

The claims are not covered under state law because they attempt to “apply New York law to oil production around the nation and around the world,” Boutrous said. He said the state court isn’t likely to allow “novel torts,” involving issues best left to the executive and legislative branches.

Boutrous acknowledged that climate change is a serious issue, but said the city’s suit would in essence regulate the production of fossil fuels because it is the products that create emissions.

“Without emissions, there is no climate change,” Boutrous told the court, adding that under the city’s logic “the only way to stop liability here is to stop producing oil.”

The court is expected to issue a decision in the coming months.

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. Climate Liability Suits: The Trend to State Courts Gains Momentum - The Climate Docket says:
    June 6, 2020 at 1:27 pm

    […] Shell with violations of federal law. The city has asked the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to review the dismissal of its case by a federal judge who unlike the Ninth Circuit, determined that the city’s claims […]

  2. New Jersey Lawmakers Push State to Sue Fossil Fuel Industry for Climate Costs - The Climate Docket says:
    July 20, 2020 at 4:05 pm

    […] U.S. Supreme Court in 2011, the dismissal of New York’s climate liability suit is currently under review by the Second Circuit. The Ninth Circuit recently overturned a lower court’s dismissal of suits […]

  3. Big Law Firms' Work Deepens Climate Crisis, Report Says - The Climate Docket says:
    October 1, 2020 at 8:03 am

    […] is a co-defendant in many of the same cases. Ted Boutrous, a Gibson Dunn partner, has argued before several appellate courts on behalf of all the fossil fuel […]

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.