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 / Uncategorized / DC: Oil Companies Are Twisting Climate Lawsuit to Keep It in Federal Court

DC: Oil Companies Are Twisting Climate Lawsuit to Keep It in Federal Court

November 18, 2020 Filed Under: Latest News, Uncategorized, Washington DC Lawsuit

print
By Karen Savage

In trying to get the District of Columbia’s climate fraud case against them moved to federal court, ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, and Shell are mischaracterizing the suit and do not have a reasonable argument, according to D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine.

In a brief filed Monday, Racine said the case—which accuses the companies of violating D.C.’s Consumer Protection Act with a coordinated, decades-long campaign to mislead the public about the risks their products pose to the climate—belongs in state court, where it was filed in June.

The companies moved the case to federal court shortly after it was filed and argue that Racine is attempting to use the consumer protection act “as a vehicle to force defendants to discontinue or reduce their extraction, production, and sale of fossil fuels around the world.”

Racine pushed back on that contention, telling the court that the companies’ argument for federal jurisdiction “distorts the district’s complaint in an effort to convert this case into something it is not.”  

D.C.’s case “seeks only to stop and penalize defendants’ ongoing deceptive conduct in the marketing of their products to D.C. consumers,” Racine wrote. He is asking the court for an injunction to prevent the companies from engaging in further violations and to compensate the city for damage they have caused.  

Racine said Exxon tried to similarly distort a complaint filed last year by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey. In that instance, the court “rejected the defendant’s improper rewrite and remanded the case to state court,” Racine wrote.

Racine told the court that despite the companies’ “far-fetched political conspiracy theories,” D.C.’s suit is not asking the court to determine “the appropriate level of fossil fuels,” as the defendants have argued.

“The District alleges that defendants had longstanding internal knowledge of certain climate change information and made deceptive and material misrepresentations and omissions to District consumers about the detrimental impacts of their fossil fuel products on the climate and about Defendants’ commitment (or lack thereof) to renewable energy sources and reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” Racine wrote.

“The District seeks to stop this deceptive marketing, not the extraction, production, sale, or use of fossil fuels. In short, this is a suit properly brought under local law to address a local problem: that defendants have violated District law and the District’s right to further and maintain a fair marketplace and consumers’ right to truthful information about the products they buy in the District.”

The issue of jurisdiction has been a key point of contention in dozens of climate change-related cases filed by municipalities across the country. Fossil fuel companies want the cases to be heard in federal court, where in the past they have had better success shaking climate change-related cases. Municipalities say the cases should be heard in state court, where most have been filed alleging violations of state law. The First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have upheld determinations by several federal courts that the cases belong in state courts.

The U.S. Supreme Court in October granted a petition by several defendant companies in a suit filed against them by Baltimore and agreed to weigh in on a procedural question related to the Fourth Circuit’s review of the lower court’s decision. The defendants on Monday asked the high court to expand their review and to make a jurisdictional determination for all climate change-related lawsuits.

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: Latest News, Uncategorized, Washington DC 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.
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
  • Climate Activists Win Necessity Defense Case in London
  • U.S. Government Knew Climate Risks in 1970s, Energy Advisory Group Documents Show
  • Justice Dept. to Argue on Side of Oil Companies in Supreme Court Hearing
  • Oil Company Will Pay $100 Million for Damaging Louisiana Coast

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.