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 / Ninth Circuit Grants Oil Companies’ Request to Pause California Climate Suits
Ninth Circuit Grants Oil Companies’ Request to Pause California Climate Suits

Ninth Circuit Grants Oil Companies’ Request to Pause California Climate Suits

August 27, 2020 Filed Under: California Climate Lawsuits, Liability Litigation

print

By Karen Savage

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has pressed pause on its earlier decision to return climate liability suits filed by several California municipalities to state court.

In an order issued Tuesday, the appellate court agreed to a request by the fossil fuel companies to halt the cases while they ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the issue of whether these cases should be heard in state or federal courts. 

The cities of Imperial Beach, Richmond, and Santa Cruz, and the counties of Marin, San Mateo, and Santa Cruz filed the suits in state court in 2017, alleging that Chevron, Exxon, Shell, Citgo, ConocoPhillips, and dozens of other fossil fuel companies have known for decades that their products cause climate change, but instead of warning the public, the companies engaged in a public relations campaign to protect their profits. The municipalities are seeking compensation for climate change-related damages.

In a joint statement, Imperial Beach Mayor Serge Dedina, San Mateo County Supervisor Dave Pine, and Marin County Supervisor Kate Sears said they disagreed with the order and the delay in hearing the case has made those damages worse.

“It has been three years since these cases were filed in state court, where they belong. Three years of increasing heat, drought, flooding, fire, and public health impacts on some of our most vulnerable populations—harms that these defendants knew would hit us,” the officials said.

California is currently experiencing some of the largest wildfires in state history. At least seven people have died and hundreds of thousands have been forced out of their homes. At least 530 buildings have been destroyed in San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties alone.

“The danger, and the taxpayer costs to protect our citizens from that danger, are mounting,” municipal officials said. “The defendants say they aren’t doing this to delay the proceedings. We think their actions speak louder than their words.”

As with dozens of similar climate change-related suits across the country, the companies want the suits to federal court, where they think they have a better chance at beating them. In May, the Ninth Circuit upheld a district judge’s determination that the cases belong in state court. 

At issue is whether the circuit court is authorized to review all of the companies’ arguments for having the cases heard in federal court. 

The companies have argued there are several reasons to keep the cases in federal court, including claims that they operated as federal agents and the Federal Officer Removal Statute, which gives federal courts jurisdiction over civil actions directed at the United States or any federal official, applies. 

Several appellate courts have soundly rejected that contention, but have said the companies’ other arguments are unreviewable. The fossil fuel companies, however, contend that those arguments are only unreviewable if presented alone and maintain they are eligible for review when presented along with the federal officer removal argument.

Now the companies say they will ask the Supreme Court to decide. The high court has yet to respond to a request by many of the same companies to review a similar ruling in Baltimore’s climate liability suit. 

The California stay is in effect for 90 days and will be extended if the Supreme Court agrees to review the case. If not, the case will be immediately moved to state court. 

The Supreme Court will decide in the fall whether it will accept the companies’ petition in the Baltimore case. In order for a review to be granted, four of the court’s nine justices must vote to accept the case.

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, 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
  • Carbon Majors Can Be Held Liable for Human Rights Violations, Philippines Commission Rules
  • Biden's DOJ Could Help Swing Momentum Around Climate Cases
  • Tiny Pacific Island Could File First National Climate Liability Suit

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.