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 / Archives for Liability Litigation / Baltimore Lawsuit

Baltimore Climate Suit Proceeds in State Court While Oil Companies Appeal

August 1, 2019 Filed Under: Baltimore Lawsuit, Liability Litigation

Climate driven flooding in Baltimore and nearby Ellicott City prompted Baltimore to file a climate suit

By Dana Drugmand

The oil companies being sued by the city of Baltimore for the costs of climate damages have appealed a recent decision by a federal judge sending the case to state court. But while the companies try to convince the appeals court that the case belongs in federal court, the judge who ordered the case back to Maryland court sustained her decision Wednesday by refusing to stop the litigation while the companies appeal. 

Like other local governments that have sued fossil fuel companies for climate liability, Baltimore’s suit is fighting a jurisdictional battle to keep the case in state court, where most experts say these cases will have better odds of succeeding. The companies want the cases in federal court, where they have already had success in getting two of the cases dismissed. So far, the three judges have agreed the cases should be decided by state courts, while one federal judge in California decided last year that San Francisco and Oakland’s suits belong in federal court, and then dismissed them. 

U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander granted Baltimore’s motion to remand to state court on June 10. The lawsuit, filed last year, alleges that more than two dozen fossil fuel companies are liable for the costs of damages and adapting to climate change. The causes of action include nuisance, product liability claims like design defect and failure to warn, trespass, and violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act – all claims under state law. 

The companies, led by Chevron’s legal team, argued in a brief filed Monday in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that the case presents “uniquely federal issues” and belongs in federal court. Despite the claims pled under state law, defendants say the claims arise under federal common law because the lawsuit, they say, seeks to regulate interstate emissions. 

Hollander had rejected these arguments in her order. “The city does not seek to modify any regulations, laws, or treaties or to establish national or global standards for greenhouse gas emissions,” she wrote. “Rather, as the city observes, it seeks damages and abatement of the nuisance within Baltimore.” 

Hollander initially stayed her order for 30 days. The companies then requested a separate stay while the Fourth Circuit considers their appeal. Hollander denied that request on Wednesday. 

She disagreed with defendants’ assertion that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their appeal. Appellate review of remand orders, she noted, is strictly limited. Only cases involving issues of “federal officer” or civil rights are reviewable, according to federal law. Although defendants argue the “federal officer” applies since they operate under permits issued by federal officials, they cannot broaden the scope of review beyond that. 

Hollander also rejected the companies’ arguments that declining the motion to stay would cause them irreparable harm. The companies say  that proceeding in state court would cost them significant time and money. 

“This case is in its earliest stages and a stay pending appeal would further delay litigation on the merits of the City’s claims,” Hollander wrote. “This favors denial of a stay, particularly given the seriousness of the City’s allegations and the amount of damages at stake.” 

The companies said they would appeal should their motion for a stay be denied. Hollander did agree to extend the stay while the defendants pursue this separate appeal, and both sides agreed to it. 

Attorney Vic Sher, partner at Sher Edling which is helping to represent Baltimore and other communities in climate liability lawsuits, said that Hollander and two other judges have made it clear that these cases should proceed in state courts. 

“We agree with Judge Hollander’s detailed and thorough remand order, which is consistent with two more federal judges who all agree that the industry is wrong and that these cases belong in state court, where we are eager to get going,” he said. 

Filed Under: Baltimore Lawsuit, Liability Litigation

Federal Judge Rules Against Big Oil, Sends Baltimore Climate Suit to State Court

June 11, 2019 Filed Under: Baltimore Lawsuit, Liability Litigation

Extreme rainfall driven by climate change has plagued Baltimore, which filed a climate liability suit

By Karen Savage

A federal court judge ruled on Tuesday that Baltimore’s climate liability suit against more than two dozen fossil fuel companies belongs in state court. The city filed the original case there last July and argued against the companies’ attempts to have the case heard in federal court.

The fossil fuel defendants relied on a “proverbial ‘laundry list’ of grounds for removal,”  U.S. District Judge Ellen L. Hollander wrote in her decision, explaining why she rejected each of those grounds in a detailed ruling. She took particular pains to explain that the public nuisance claims the city is pursuing can only be decided in a state court and the city  “nowhere even alleges that the defendants violated any federal statutes or regulations.”

The ruling is important because all of the liability suits that have been filed by communities across the country against the oil industry are embroiled in a battle over jurisdiction, with the cities trying to get the cases heard in state court under state laws and the industry fighting to put them in federal court, where past climate-related cases have been decided largely in its favor.

“We’re happy to see this case return to the state court where it was filed, and where it belongs,” said Andre M. Davis, Baltimore’s city solicitor. “While we expect the fossil fuel companies to continue to delay and distract from the merits of our case, we are eager to get to work to hold these fossil fuel companies accountable for the costs and damages of climate change,”

Baltimore alleges in the suit that ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and 23 other fossil fuel producers and distributors knew for decades about fossil fuels’ role in driving climate change but deliberately failed to inform the public about those risks.

The city charges the companies with eight legal violations, including  public nuisance, private nuisance, failure to warn and violations of the Maryland’s consumer protection laws.

In the suit, Baltimore details how the city is already adversely affected by climate change and how  its residents are already suffering health effects related to increased heatwaves and increased precipitation. Its approximately 60 miles of waterfront is also vulnerable to sea level rise and flooding.

Lead by Chevron, the fossil fuel companies moved the suit to federal court shortly after it was filed. The city then moved to return the suit to state court, the question Hollander decided on Tuesday. She did grant the companies a 30-day stay so they can prepare an appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In her decision, Hollander said Baltimore’s public nuisance claim belongs in state court. “It may be true that the City’s public nuisance claim is not viable under Maryland law. But, this Court need not – and, indeed, cannot – make that determination.” She also noted that “no federal question jurisdiction exists over the city’s public nuisance claim, which is founded on Maryland law,” she wrote.

Hollander also said the city’s nuisance claims, which are based on the “extraction, production, promotion and sale of fossil fuel products without warning consumers of their known risks” rely only on state nuisance law, do not rely on federal statutes or regulations.

Hollander also pushed back on the reasoning of another federal judge, William Alsup, who dismissed similar cases filed by Oakland and San Francisco in June 2018. Alsup had previously ruled that the case should be heard in his court because federal law pre-empted state law regarding climate change. Hollander wrote that Alsup’s ruling “is at odds with the firmly established principle that ordinary preemption does not give rise to federal question.”

She also determined that the fossil fuel defendants’ arguments for removal to federal court relied on a “mischaracterization of the city’s claims.”

“The Complaint does not allege that defendants violated any duties to disclose imposed by federal law. Rather, it alleges that defendants breached various duties under state law by, inter alia, failing to warn consumers, retailers, regulators, public officials, and the city of the risks posed by their fossil fuel products,” wrote Hollander, adding that she rejects attempts by the fossil fuel companies to “inject a federal issue into the City’s state law public nuisance claim where one simply does not exist.”

The companies also argued that Baltimore’s claims have an impact on foreign affairs, a contention also rejected by Hollander, who said the fossil fuel companies “wholly fail to demonstrate that a federal question is ‘essential to resolving’ the city’s state law claims.”

The other communities with suits pending against many of the same companies are awaiting jurisdiction decisions that may prove pivotal in the fate of their cases. Several California communities— Santa Cruz, Imperial Beach and the counties of Marin, San Mateo and Santa Cruz—were remanded to state courts, but the fossil fuel industry has appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  

A federal court judge in Louisiana last week ruled that a suit filed by Plaquemines Parish belongs in state court. That suit is one of 42 filed by Louisiana parishes against oil and gas companies for damaging the coastal wetlands and increasing the state’s vulnerability to sea level rise and other climate impacts.

Baltimore Mayor Bernard C. “Jack” Young  said the ruling moves his city and its residents one step closer to holding the oil and gas companies accountable for climate change.  

“Today is a good day for Baltimore’s hard-working residents, workers, and taxpayers,” Young said. “They should not be forced to pay the enormous costs the city is incurring to cope with climate change-related damages the fossil fuel companies knowingly inflicted on us.”  

Filed Under: Baltimore Lawsuit, Liability Litigation

For Andre Davis, Judge Turned Baltimore City Lawyer, Climate Suit Is a Battle for Justice

October 30, 2018 Filed Under: Baltimore Lawsuit, Featured, Liability Litigation

Andre Davis, Baltimore City Solicitor, is leading a climate lawsuit against Big Oil

By Seamus McGraw

Allies and critics alike were caught off-guard when Andre M. Davis, Baltimore’s city solicitor, announced in July that the vulnerable coastal city was filing a lawsuit against fossil fuel companies. The city, already suffering the ravages of a changing climate, charges that BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil and 23 other companies had worked for decades to conceal the dangers of climate change.

Just one day earlier, U.S. District  Judge John Keenan had tossed out a similar suit by New York City, arguing that while climate change is undeniable, it is the role of federal and state legislatures to address it, not the courts.  A month earlier, a federal judge in California had reached the same conclusion, dismissing a suit filed by San Francisco and Oakland on very much the same grounds.

So why then would Davis, a 69-year-old former state and federal judge who became the city’s chief legal officer in 2017, known more for his lifelong commitment to civil rights, who had gained a reputation as a thoughtful, deliberate and careful jurist, take on such an apparently quixotic challenge?

The answer, say those who have known him well, is the suit represents one more chance for Davis to go to bat for the place he has always called home. And he has spent his entire life bucking the odds.

His friends and colleagues and former mentors contend there is nothing surprising in Davis’ enthusiasm for the case, nor in his seemingly unflagging confidence that in the end, the suit will prevail.

“He has always had a strong sense of public service,” said Franklin Lee, a Baltimore lawyer who has known Davis since his days at the University of Maryland Law School. And he’s also had a firm faith in the power of the courts, state courts in particular, to right what he sees as wrongs.

The movement to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for its role in climate change—and obscuring it with decades of misinformation and funding outright denial efforts—is also a movement for environmental justice. The dozen communities across the country that have filed climate liability suits are seeking compensation for real and future damages that put infrastructure and people at risk and don’t believe taxpayers alone should keep footing the bill as it comes due. The impacts also take a disproportionately larger toll on poor and minority communities.

Baltimore has a long history of battling injustice. While Davis was growing up in the 1950s, it was as segregated as any city in the country. On the snowy night in 1949 when he was born, his mother had to travel all the way across the city to a hospital where black doctors could deliver black babies.

And yet, the East Baltimore neighborhood where he was raised had benefited from the post-war economic boom. Most everybody who wanted a job had one, many of them working for Bethlehem Steel, including most of Davis’ family. Davis described the neighborhood as a  refuge, a sanctuary—a community in the best sense of that word. “It was a community in which people looked out for each other,” Davis told the Baltimore Sun in a 2017 interview. “My mother told me, ‘Somebody’s always watching you,’ and it was true. You couldn’t go very far without eyes on kids.”

Davis never lost his connection to Baltimore or to the neighborhood where he grew up. Even when he earned the first scholarship awarded by the Ford Foundation to a Baltimore kid and attended the prestigious Andover Academy in Massachusetts—he was one of only four African American students in the school at the time—he remained steadfastly loyal to his home city, friends say.

“Some of the classmates you meet in those kinds of environments end up very important, running things,” Lee said. Indeed, Davis’s stint at the school was bookended by Bushes: former President George W. Bush graduated the year before Davis arrived and former Florida governor and 2016 presidential candidate Jeb Bush entered the school the year after Davis graduated. But those years in the leafy reaches of New England did nothing to dull the lure of home for Davis.

College brought him closer to home when he entered the University of Pennsylvania in 1971, receiving a bachelor‘s degree in American history.

He then earned a living at a series of jobs, including driving a cab, which honed what was already a granular and ground-level grasp of every street in the city and the people who travel them.

Inspired by a class he took on constitutional law, Davis turned his sights toward becoming an attorney.

“He really hit the law school here like a star,” said Larry Gibson, a professor who taught Davis at the University of Maryland Law School. “To say that he was a student leader is a gross understatement.” He was intellectually gifted, driven, and yet had a “down to earth” quality, his former schoolmate Lee remembered. Even then, Lee believes, he was being groomed to be a judge by his professors.

During his three years in law school, he racked up awards and honors. He wrote for the law review and was a skilled litigator who was elected to serve as one of three members of the school’s National Moot Court Team. He served on the honor board and was president of the Black Law Students Association before graduating among the top 10 students in his class.

It’s where he sharpened his passion for civil rights law and developed a lifelong appreciation for the power and authority of state courts. The University of Maryland Law School did not admit black students until 1936. Peter Quint, the Jacob A. France professor emeritus of constitutional law at the University of Maryland and one of Davis’s instructors, said the federal courts did not make that decision. “It was decided by the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland,” Quint said.

Davis had been keenly aware of the state court’s role. And he was also profoundly aware of the need to literally carve those hard-won advances in stone, his professors noted. He was instrumental in beginning the drive to name the library after an icon of civil rights law, Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Davis had dreams of becoming a great civil rights lawyer.

He graduated and served as a clerk for federal Judge Frank Kauffman and later for Francis Dominic Murnaghan Jr. on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, whom years later he would replace on the bench. Davis became an appellate attorney for the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, went on to become an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Maryland and after two years went into private practice. In his spare time, he taught at his alma mater.

He had been out of law school just 10 years when then-Gov. William Schaeffer appointed him associate judge in the Baltimore District Court.

For Davis, it was an ideal post. Not only did it give him a chance to serve justice on his beloved home turf, it gave him a chance to do it on what he had come to believe was a court that really mattered.

“He really loved being on the district court because he was dealing with real problems, real people’s lives on a relatively small scale, “ Lee remembered. “He told me that it gave him great satisfaction that he could mete out justice in an environment where people just weren’t expecting it anymore.”

In 1990, Schaefer appointed him to the District Court. Five years later, he was confirmed as a judge for the U.S. District Court for Maryland, and in 2009, upon the death of Murnaghan, he was appointed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

For many an ambitious jurist, that would be the end of the line. But Davis was never destined to be the type who “just retired to the bench,” his old teacher Gibson said.

And so, to his colleagues and former mentors, it came as no surprise when he stepped down from the Fourth Circuit to become Baltimore’s city solicitor last year. He had brushed aside repeated overtures from Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh for him to take the job, but he finally made the leap.

It was, Quint believes, a decision motivated by Davis’s fierce loyalty to his hometown. “A sense of place,” Quint calls it, “a sense of identification with the place where he was born, and where he grew up.”

It was also an opportunity for Davis to continue to flex his legal and intellectual muscles while at the same time returning to what had been his first real loves: Baltimore and the pursuit of civil rights cases, said Gibson. “It doesn’t mystify me that after 30 years on the courts he wanted to try something else,” Gibson said.

What does mystify some is that among the first cases he would tackle would be a lawsuit targeting 26 major oil producers, seeking to hold them accountable for the ravages Baltimore has suffered and can expect to suffer in the future from a changing climate.  

In all the years he has known him, “I have had zero discussions with him on climate in general,” said Lee, “let alone that particular lawsuit.”

“It’s a complete mystery, this whole thing on this climate change case, a complete mystery. I have no idea where his mind was on that,” Lee added.

But others who have known him over the years believe they can suss out a familiar pattern in his decision to file suit against the oil producers in the Baltimore District Court, the very court where he first served as a judge.

Almost immediately after Davis filed the suit, the defendants in the case moved to have the case heard in federal court, where legal precedent favors their arguments for dismissal. Davis and the city are contesting that decision, urging the federal court to return the case to the state courts.

Davis said he is confident that his former colleague on the federal bench, Judge Ellen Hollander, will see things the way he does. “We simply took the view…that the New York and California federal judges employed deeply flawed reasoning in their orders to dismiss those cases.” Davis said. “We have great federal judges in Maryland—of whom Judge Hollander is one—who never blindly follow others…we were confident that we’ll get a full and fair hearing and, specifically, a complete opportunity to explain why the court should reject the reasoning in those cases and remand our case to state court, where it belongs. Time will tell.”

But perhaps an even more compelling impetus for Davis to take on such a complex case is that it has the potential to be, in effect, a landmark civil rights case. It would not vary much from the landmark decision that opened the doors of the University of Maryland school to black students and made Davis’ career possible, said Quint.

“This case is kind of universal,” Quint said. “But in general it’s often the case with environmental problems that they fall the hardest on minorities and disadvantaged groups…and so there’s a relationship between the two kinds of civil rights claims.”

Filed Under: Baltimore Lawsuit, Featured, Liability Litigation

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • Next Page »
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

  • Carbon Majors Can Be Held Liable for Human Rights Violations, Philippines Commission Rules
  • Vulnerable Nations Call for Ecocide to Be Recognized As an International Crime
  • BP Accused of 'Greenwashing' and Deceiving Public With Renewable Energy Ads
  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?
  • Massive Wildfire Costs Could Sink California's Largest Utility

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