Cases against corporations
,
California
The Golden State has been the epicenter of climate liability lawsuits brought by local governments against major fossil fuel companies, with eight communities taking legal action so far. A commercial crab fishing trade association representing West Coast fishermen has also sued the fossil fuel industry.
County of San Mateo et al. v. Chevron Corp. et al.
Current Status: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed - for a second time - the remand order sending the cases back to state court.
Background: Three lawsuits jointly filed in July 2017 by Marin and San Mateo counties and the city of Imperial Beach, all coastal communities that are highly vulnerable to coastal erosion/flooding and sea level rise. The suits target 37 fossil fuel companies with nuisance and product liability claims and seek monetary damages to help pay for costs associated with climate adaptation, estimated at billions of dollars. The communities filed their lawsuits in California state court (Contra Costa County Superior Court), and the defendants moved the suits to federal court (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California).
A battle has played out over federal vs. state court jurisdiction. The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand their suits back to state court. In March 2018, District Judge Vince Chhabria granted the remand, ordering the cases belong in state court. The defendants appealed that decision. Following a hearing in February 2020, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on May 26 in favor of the plaintiffs, upholding Chhabria’s decision. The panel denied defendants' request for a rehearing, but subsequently granted a stay or pause on the remand order while defendants prepare to file a petition with the Supreme Court. Defendants filed that petition in Dec. 2020, and the Supreme Court granted it on May 24, 2021 with an order the cases be sent back to the Ninth Circuit for reconsideration. The Ninth Circuit ruled on April 19, 2022 against the defendants once again, rejecting additional grounds for federal jurisdiction. Defendants petitioned for a rehearing, which was denied in June 2022. The cases are currently paused while defendants seek another intervention from the Supreme Court.
More info on these cases:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/county-san-mateo-v-chevron-corp/
County of Santa Cruz et al. v. Chevron Corp. et al.
Current Status: Consolidated with San Mateo cases; cases on track to proceed in state court following the Ninth Circuit's second ruling upholding remand.
Background: The city and county of Santa Cruz filed suit against 29 fossil fuel companies in December 2017, and a month later the city of Richmond joined with its own suit against the same companies. The communities filed the suits in California Superior Court, and defendants moved them to federal court. The District Court for the Northern District of California granted remand of the suits in July 2018, and defendants promptly appealed. The Ninth Circuit consolidated these cases with the San Mateo cases in considering the appeal. The three-judge panel ruled on May 26 to send the cases by the six California communities back to state court.
More info on these cases:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/county-santa-cruz-v-chevron-corp/
http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/Home/Components/News/News/7718/36
City of Oakland, City of San Francisco, v. BP et al.
Current Status: Cases remanded, on track to proceed in state court. In May 2020 the Ninth Circuit ordered the cases be sent back to District Court for reconsideration, where a renewed motion to remand was pending. The Supreme Court denied defendants' petition to review the Ninth Circuit's ruling in June 2021.
Background: Oakland and San Francisco each filed a lawsuit in September 2017 against five of the “Big Oil” companies – BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell. The cities filed in state court and alleged a narrower claim of public nuisance. The oil companies moved the suits to federal court. The cities moved to remand back to state court, but on February 27, 2018 District Judge William Alsup denied that remand motion. He also ordered a climate science tutorial, which took place in March 2018. In June 2018 Alsup granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, deciding that courts cannot “solve” the problem of climate change and agreeing with defendants’ argument that the claims arise under federal common law, which is displaced by the Clean Air Act. The cities appealed this decision. The Ninth Circuit held oral arguments in February 2020, with the same three-judge panel that heard the San Mateo/Santa Cruz cases also presiding on this appeal. That panel issued a decision on May 26 along with its decision in the San Mateo cases. The panel ruled in favor of Oakland/San Francisco that the cases do not raise issues of federal law and should proceed in state court. The oil companies petitioned for a rehearing in this case on July 9, 2020, arguing that the Ninth Circuit panel "overlooked or misapprehended several key issues" including rejecting federal common law as an independent ground for federal jurisdiction. In other words, the companies want the Ninth Circuit to uphold Judge Alsup's ruling that the case arises under federal common law - and therefore must be dismissed under Supreme Court precedent in a previous climate lawsuit brought by states against power plants (AEP v. Connecticut), which held that federal common law is displaced by the Clean Air Act in global warming nuisance cases. The Ninth Circuit panel denied the request for rehearing on August 12, 2020. The defendants are challenging the Ninth Circuit ruling with a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court (Docket # 20-1089). The Supreme Court denied that petition on June 14, 2021.
Meanwhile, the District Court held a case management conference on Dec. 16, 2020, where the parties agreed to briefing on a renewed motion to remand. The remand issue had been paused while the defendants seek intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied. Defendants were dealt another procedural defeat when District Judge Alsup issued a decision to remand the cases on October 24, 2022.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/people-state-california-v-bp-plc-oakland/
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association, Inc. v. Chevron Corp.
Current Status: Case pending, currently paused until the federal vs. state court jurisdictional question is resolved in similar California climate liability cases.
Background: Lawsuit filed in November 2018 by a commercial fishing trade association against 30 fossil fuel companies. Complaint filed in California Superior Court and includes nuisance and product liability claims. The fishing association details in its complaint the economic damage from the collapse of Dungeness crab stocks due to warming oceans and associated algal blooms that poison the crab. It is the first climate-related lawsuit filed by an industry against the fossil fuel industry.
The defendants moved the suit to federal court. The case had been stayed, or paused, to allow for similar climate tort cases in California to be resolved on the jurisdiction issue.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/pacific-coast-federation-of-fishermens-associations-inc-v-chevron-corp/
Drilled podcast, Season 2: Hot Water https://www.criticalfrequency.org/drilled
Colorado
Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County et al. v. Suncor et al.
Current Status: Case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, which has invited the U.S. (Solicitor General) to weigh in on the jurisdictional question. Defendants are fighting to have the case in federal court, and have filed a second petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. Their initial petition to Supreme Court was granted and the case had returned to the Tenth Circuit Court for further consideration. The Tenth Circuit issued a decision on Feb. 8, 2022 finding once again that the case should proceed in state court.
Background: Three Colorado communities – the city and county of Boulder along with the county of San Miguel – filed a lawsuit in April 2018 against ExxonMobil and Suncor (plus Suncor affiliates) seeking damages to help pay for climate-related costs. The complaint alleges claims of nuisance, trespass, and unjust enrichment, as well as a claim of deceptive trade practices under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. It was the first climate lawsuit filed by inland (non-coastal) communities against fossil fuel producers.
The parties have battled over jurisdiction. Plaintiffs filed in state court, and defendants moved the case to federal court. In September 2019 District Judge William Martinez ruled in favor of plaintiffs to remand the case back to state court. Defendants appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. While the case was under appeal, Martinez refused to stay proceedings, allowing the case to simultaneously proceed in state court. The Tenth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court also refused to stay the case. The Tenth Circuit held a hearing (by telephone) on May 6, and a decision on the defendants’ appeal was issued on July 7, upholding District Judge Martinez's decision to remand the case to state court. Defendants have also filed a motion to dismiss in state court. The plaintiffs filed a brief opposing that motion earlier this year (2020). The Boulder County District Court (state court) held a hearing on motions to dismiss on June 1, and a decision is pending. The case is currently on hold in state court pending the Supreme Court resolution of personal jurisdiction issues in unrelated litigation involving Ford Motor Co. The oil companies meanwhile filed a petition in Dec. 2020 to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to overturn the Tenth Circuit decision - that petition was granted on May 24 in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Baltimore case. The Tenth's Circuit's decision is overturned and that court must consider the defendants' other grounds for federal jurisdiction. On February 8, 2022 the Tenth Circuit once again rejected the oil companies' bid to keep the case in federal court, ruling to uphold the District Court's remand order. The companies are seeking another intervention from the Supreme Court in a bid to further delay the litigation advancing in state court.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/board-of-county-commissioners-of-boulder-county-v-suncor-energy-usa-inc/
https://earthrights.org/case/climate-change-litigation-colorado/
Connecticut
State of Connecticut v. ExxonMobil Corp.
Current Status: Case ordered to be sent back (remanded) to state court. Exxon is appealing this ruling.
Background: The state of Connecticut filed a lawsuit against oil major ExxonMobil to hold the company accountable for its alleged deception on climate change, including historical campaigns to undermine climate science and downplay the risks of burning fossil fuels as well as ongoing "greenwashing" campaigns that mislead the public about the company's role as a leader in solving climate change while Exxon remains substantially committed to its core fossil fuel business. The Attorney General of Connecticut, William Tong, filed the lawsuit on Sept. 14, 2020 in Connecticut state court accusing Exxon of violating the state's anti-fraud law, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Connecticut is seeking to compel Exxon to stop its deceptive acts, disgorge profits gained through its decades of deception and pay civil penalties, disclose all research the company or its affiliates have conducted on climate, and fund a “corrective education campaign to remedy the harm inflicted by decades of disinformation.”
Exxon removed the case to federal district court and filed a motion to dismiss there for lack of personal jurisdiction. Connecticut filed a motion to remand to state court on Dec. 2, 2020. A hearing on the motion to remand was held on May 21, 2021. On June 2, 2021 the federal district court granted the motion to remand. Exxon is appealing the remand decision to the Second Circuit. Hearing on this appeal is scheduled for September 23, 2022.
More info on this case:
https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Press-Releases/2020-Press-Releases/CONNECTICUT-SUES-EXXON-FOR-DECADES-OF-DECEIT-REGARDING-CLIMATE-CHANGE
http://climatecasechart.com/case/state-v-exxon-mobil-corp/
Delaware
State of Delaware v. BP America Inc. et al.
Current Status: Case proceeding to battle over federal vs. state court jurisdiction - The District Court (a federal court) granted the state's motion to remand, or send the case back to state court, on Jan. 5, 2022. Defendants appealed in a bid to keep the case in federal court, but the appeals court rejected their arguments for federal jurisdiction.
Background: Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings filed a climate accountability case against 30 major fossil fuel companies (29 oil and gas firms and one coal company) plus the main trade association for the U.S. oil and gas industry - the American Petroleum Institute (API). AG Jennings filed the lawsuit on September 10, 2020 in Delaware Superior Court. The lawsuit includes legal claims of public nuisance, trespass, negligent failure to warn, and violations of the state’s Consumer Fraud Act, and seeks monetary damages to help pay for climate-related costs the state is incurring as climate impacts worsen. The state alleges these impacts and costs have been magnified by "defendants’ decades-long campaign of deception."
Defendants promptly removed the case to federal court. Delaware filed to remand to state court and filed a brief supporting its remand motion on Jan. 5, 2021. A hearing on the remand issue was held on May 19, 2021. A decision was issued on Jan. 5, 2022 remanding the case. Defendants then appealed the ruling to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled on August 17, 2022 to affirm the remand decision.
More info on this case:
https://news.delaware.gov/2020/09/10/ag-jennings-announces-suit-to-hold-exxon-american-petroleum-institute-29-others-accountable-for-climate-change-costs/
http://climatecasechart.com/case/state-v-bp-america-inc/
District of Columbia
District of Columbia v. ExxonMobil Corp. et al.
Current Status: Case ordered to be remanded (sent back) to state court; defendants are appealing this ruling.
Background: Washington DC filed a lawsuit on June 25, 2020 - just one day after Minnesota filed a similar suit - for alleged climate deception in violation of the DC Consumer Protection Procedures Act. Defendants are the four largest investor-owned oil and gas companies - BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell. The lawsuit documents how these Big Oil companies engineered and funded campaigns to undermine climate science and downplay the consequences of burning their fossil fuel products, and how the communications strategies have shifted towards "greenwashing" and misleading messaging about the companies' commitments to solving climate change. The lawsuit seeks an order mandating an end to the companies' disinformation on climate and also seeks civil penalties. The case was filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
Defendants moved the case to federal court, and on Aug. 17, 2020 the District of Columbia filed a motion to remand to state court. A decision granting remand was issued on November 12, 2022. The case is temporarily paused as defendants seek an appeal.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/district-of-columbia-v-exxon-mobil-corp/
Hawaii
City and County of Honolulu v. Sunoco et al.
Current Status: Case remanded (sent back) to Hawaii state court, along with case brought by Maui, in ruling issued Feb. 12, 2021. The fossil fuel defendants tried unsuccessfully to challenge the remand decision on appeal.
Background: Honolulu filed a lawsuit in March 2020 against major oil companies seeking to hold them liable for climate impacts and associated costs in Hawaii’s capital city. As an island community, Honolulu is especially vulnerable to sea level and flooding as well as beach erosion and tropical storms. The state of Hawaii has estimated the cost of elevating roads at up to $15 billion, and on the island of Oahu nearly $13 billion worth of property is at risk from sea level rise.
In April the defendants moved case to federal court (US District Court for the District of Hawaii), Case # CV 20-00163. Case assigned to Judge Derrick Watson. On May 1, Judge Watson stayed the case pending resolution of the Oakland/San Francisco and San Mateo appeals. According to Watson’s order, “No later than fourteen (14) days after the Ninth Circuit issues a decision in both San Mateo and Oakland, the parties are directed to submit a plan--jointly, if possible, and separately, if not--that addresses the various scheduling and other issues contemplated by Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 and related local rules.” Judge Watson ordered the stay lifted on August 21, 2020, allowing the case to proceed to the battle over state vs. federal court jurisdiction. Briefing on the remand motion began in Fall 2020, and the case had been paused to allow for completion of briefing in the Maui case. With that briefing complete, Judge Watson ruled on Feb. 12, 2021 to remand both the Honolulu and Maui cases - yet another procedural loss for the fossil fuel companies in climate liability litigation. The companies are appealing, but the District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court refused to stay the litigation pending appeal. A hearing in Hawaii state court on defendants' motions to dismiss was held August 27, 2021. In early 2022 the state court judge denied the motions to dismiss; defendants are trying to appeal this ruling. In federal court, a hearing appealing the remand order was held in Feb. 2022; in July 2022 the Ninth Circuit ruled to affirm the remand order, rejecting defendants' claims of federal jurisdiction. The ruling applies to both Honolulu's case and Maui's case.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/city-county-of-honolulu-v-sunoco-lp/
https://www.resilientoahu.org/accountability
County of Maui v. Sunoco et al.
Current Status: Complaint filed Oct. 12, 2020; case remanded to state court in ruling on Feb. 12, 2021. The fossil fuel defendants tried unsuccessfully to challenge the remand ruling on appeal.
Background: Maui County sued over a dozen oil and gas companies in Hawaii state court on October 12, 2020, seeking to hold the companies accountable for climate change impacts and associated costs. The Hawaiian county encompasses several low-lying islands and is especially vulnerable to sea level rise, coastal erosion and flooding, and other damaging consequences of climate change allegedly exacerbated by the fossil fuel industry's delay tactics and deception campaigns designed to cast doubt on climate science and downplay the risks of fossil fuel products. Maui brought its lawsuit under state law claims of public and private nuisance, trespass, strict liability for failure to warn and negligent failure to warn; relief requested includes compensatory and punitive damages (make the companies pay) and disgorgement of profits.
Defendants led by Chevron promptly moved the case to federal court. Maui filed to remand (send back) the case to state court on Nov. 25, 2020. Defendants filed an opposition to the remand motion on Dec. 22, 2020. With briefing on remand completed, Judge Derrick Watson ruled against the defendants and ordered the case be remanded to Hawaii state court (Second Circuit Court for the State of Hawaii) on Feb. 12, 2021. The case is on the same procedural track as the Honolulu case.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/county-of-maui-v-sunoco-lp/
Maryland
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. BP et al.
Current Status: Defendants are seeking a second intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court following the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in April 2022 to once again affirm the remand order. The Fourth Circuit made this second ruling after considering (per order of the Supreme Court) all of the oil company defendants' arguments for federal jurisdiction.
Background: Lawsuit filed in July 2018 by the city of Baltimore against 26 fossil fuel companies, seeking damages to help pay for climate-related costs in the city. Baltimore filed in Maryland state court and brought nuisance and product liability claims as well as a claim under Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act.
Defendants moved the case to federal court, and the city filed a motion to remand. In June 2019 District Judge Ellen Hollander granted remand. Defendants appealed, and both Judge Hollander and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to stay the remand order, allowing the case to proceed in state court while the defendants sought an appeal of the remand decision. The Supreme Court also refused to stay the case. The Fourth Circuit heard oral arguments on the appeal in December 2019. On March 6, 2020 the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of Baltimore, upholding the District Court’s remand order. The defendants filed a petition (seeking another appeal) to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted the petition on Oct. 2, 2020. The Court heard the case in January 2021 and issued a decision on May 17, 2021 in favor of the defendants, vacating the Fourth Circuit's ruling and ordering the case be sent back to that court for further proceedings. The Fourth Circuit held oral arguments in January 2022, and a decision issued on April 7, 2022 once again upheld the remand order. On May 17, 2022 the Fourth Circuit denied defendants' petition for en banc review (a rehearing before the full court). Defendants are filing another petition to the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, in state court, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and in April 2020 Baltimore filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss. On August 6, 2020 Judge Brown of the Maryland Circuit Court granted defendants' motion to defer (delay) hearings on a motion for a protective order and a motion to dismiss. Hearings had been deferred pending the case's outcome in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court's ruling on personal jurisdiction in an unrelated case (Ford Motor).
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/mayor-city-council-of-baltimore-v-bp-plc/
City of Annapolis v. BP et al.
Current Status: Case remanded to state court (remand order is temporarily stayed).
Background: Maryland's capital city brought a lawsuit against major fossil fuel companies and the American Petroleum Institute alleging they misled the public on the climate impacts of burning fossil fuels and demanding these fossil fuel entities help pay for localized costs relating to climate damages. The complaint, filed on February 22, 2021, describes ongoing misleading behavior by the defendants with current greenwashing efforts, in addition to their historical campaigns of deception. The City filed its lawsuit in Maryland Circuit Court (state court) and has brought claims of public and private nuisance, trespass, failure to warn, and violation of Maryland's Consumer Protection Act. Relief requested include payment of damages (compensatory and punitive), equitable relief and abatement of nuisances, and disgorgement of profits. This is the first climate accountability lawsuit filed against major oil and gas companies by a state capital.
Fossil fuel defendants led by Chevron removed the lawsuit to federal court on March 25, 2021. The case had been stayed (paused) in federal district court pending the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal's resolution of the jurisdiction issue in Baltimore's case. Following the Fourth Circuit's second ruling affirming remand, and following briefing by both parties on the remand issue, the District Court ruled on September 29, 2022 to remand the litigation. The mandate is temporarily stayed as defendants are taking Baltimore's case back to the Supreme Court.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/city-of-annapolis-v-bp-plc/
Anne Arundel County v. BP et al.
Current Status: Case remanded to state court (remand order is temporarily stayed). This case is on the same procedural track (grouped together with) the Annapolis case.
Background: Lawsuit filed on April 26, 2021 by a coastal Maryland county (home to Annapolis) against major oil and gas companies and the American Petroleum Institute to hold them accountable for localized climate impacts and costs. The county alleges the defendants deceived the public on the climate risks of their products, and should be held liable for damages. Relief sought includes monetary damages (compensatory and punitive), equitable relief, disgorgement of profits, and recovery under the state's consumer protection law. The case was filed in Maryland state court, and brings legal claims of nuisance (public and private), strict liability for failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, trespass, and violations of Maryland's Consumer Protection Act. It is the third climate liability lawsuit filed in Maryland.
Defendants promptly removed the case to federal district court. On June 1, 2021 the district court stayed the case, pending the Fourth Circuit's ruling in Baltimore's climate liability case. With the Fourth Circuit affirming remand in April 2022, the parties proceeded to briefing on the remand issue - and the District Court granted remand on September 29, 2022.
More info:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/anne-arundel-county-v-bp-plc/
Massachusetts
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. ExxonMobil Corp.
Current Status: Case proceeding to discovery phase in state court. A hearing was held in March 2021 on Exxon's motions to dismiss, and the court ruled on June 23, 2021 to deny both motions. Exxon tried appealing the denial of its special motion to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP statute, which was unsuccessful.
Background: On Oct. 24, 2019 Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey filed a lawsuit alleging ExxonMobil misled Massachusetts consumers and investors regarding disclosing climate risk to the company’s business and deceptively advertising its products. The lawsuit followed a 3.5-year investigation, which Exxon was unsuccessful in stopping. The suit, filed in Suffolk Superior Court, alleges Exxon violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. The Commonwealth is seeking injunctive relief as well as civil penalties.
Exxon moved the case to federal court, and the Commonwealth filed a motion to remand to state court. The federal district court held a hearing (via telephone) in March 2020 and ruled to remand the case back to state court. Exxon has since filed two motions to dismiss the case in state court, including an attempt to squash the case under the state's anti-Slapp law, Bloomberg reported. Following a hearing on these motions to dismiss in May 2021, the state court issued orders denying Exxon's two motions to dismiss. Exxon appealed the denial of its special motion to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP statute, and the appeals court denied the petition for interlocutory relief. On May 24, 2022 the state Supreme Judicial Court ruled on the state's request for direct appellate review, concurring that the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to enforcement actions brought by the Attorney General. The case is proceeding to discovery in state court.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/commonwealth-v-exxon-mobil-corp/
https://www.mass.gov/lists/attorney-generals-office-lawsuit-against-exxonmobil
Minnesota
State of Minnesota v. American Petroleum Institute et al.
Current Status: Complaint filed in June 2020; hearing held Jan. 19, 2021 on motion to remand, and the federal District Court granted remand on March 31, 2021. Defendants are appealing the remand ruling in a bid to keep the case out of state court.
Background: Minnesota filed a climate lawsuit under the state's consumer protection laws on June 24, 2020 in Minnesota District Court for the County of Ramsey (a Minnesota state court). The lawsuit targets several defendants, including ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, Koch Industries, and two Koch subsidiaries - Flint Hills Resources LP and Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend. Similar to the Washington DC case and the Massachusetts case, the Minnesota case focuses on alleged fraud and alleges the defendants misled consumers regarding the risks of climate change and the dangers of fossil fuel products. Minnesota's lawsuit includes claims for fraud, failure to warn, and multiple separate violations of Minnesota statutes that prohibit consumer fraud, deceptive trade practices, and false statements in advertising. The relief sought includes maximum civil penalties, disgorgement of profits, an order for defendants to stop their alleged misleading advertising and communications and also for them to fund a public education campaign in the state on the subject of climate change.
Defendants moved the case to federal court in late July, and on August 26, 2020 Minnesota filed a motion to remand to state court. Briefing on the motion has completed, and the federal district court held a hearing on the motion on Jan. 19, 2021. The court ruled on March 31, 2021 to remand the case to state court - though the defendants immediately filed for an emergency stay, which the court granted on April 7. Defendants are appealing the remand decision to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. A decision on remand is pending.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/state-v-american-petroleum-institute/
New Jersey
City of Hoboken v. ExxonMobil et al.
Current Status: Third Circuit Court affirmed remand in a ruling in August 2022. The case was originally remanded by the federal district court on Sept. 8, 2021, and defendants unsuccessfully appealed that ruling.
Background: The city of Hoboken, New Jersey, located on the banks of the Hudson River across from New York City, filed a climate lawsuit targeting major oil and gas companies and the American Petroleum Institute for alleged deception on the climate impacts stemming from the burning of fossil fuels. Complaint was originally filed September 2, 2020. Hoboken's suit alleges that the oil and gas companies and their lobbying group not only knew early on about the climate harms resulting from their products, but actively engaged in campaigns of deception to undermine climate science and avoid policy responses. Defendants named in the lawsuit include BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Shell, and Phillips 66 along with API. Hoboken filed its case on September 2, 2020 in Hudson County Superior Court, a New Jersey state court. The lawsuit includes legal claims of public and private nuisance, trespass, negligence, and violation of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, and it seeks to recover costs associated with climate impacts like extreme flooding and sea level rise.
Defendants promptly removed the case to federal court. Hoboken filed a motion to remand (Nov. 5, 2020) and a supporting memorandum of law (Dec. 11, 2020). On Sept. 8, 2021 the federal court ruled in favor of Hoboken to send the case back to state court. Defendants appealed the remand order to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 17, 2022 the Third Circuit ruled to affirm remand in Delaware's case, and this ruling also applies to Hoboken's case.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/city-of-hoboken-v-exxon-mobil-corp/
Platkin v. ExxonMobil et al.
Current Status: Case filed on October 18, 2022.
Background: New Jersey is suing major oil and gas companies and the industry trade association American Petroleum Institute over their role in exacerbating the climate crisis through decades-long campaigns of deception to undermine climate science and block climate policies. The lawsuit, filed New Jersey Superior Court (state court), targets ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66, Shell, and API. Plaintiffs include New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin, Acting Director of the Division of Consumer Affairs Cari Fais, and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The state is seeking monetary damages, disgorgement of profits unlawfully acquired, and abatement of the alleged tortious conduct, and the legal claims include state law tort claims (nuisance, trespass, failure to warn, negligence, impairment of the public trust) and violations of the state's Consumer Fraud Act.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/platkin-v-exxon-mobil-corp/
New York
City of New York v. ExxonMobil et al.
Current Status: Case paused pending the Second Circuit Court of Appeal's resolution of the jurisdiction issue in Connecticut's case.
Background: New York City brought a new climate accountability lawsuit against Big Oil (ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and the American Petroleum Institute) on Earth Day 2021, seeking to hold the defendants accountable for greenwashing and deceptive trade practices in violation of the city's consumer protection law. The lawsuit (filed on April 22, 2021) was filed in New York state court, and according to a press release, the City "seeks seeks relief to stop Defendants from engaging the deceptive practices alleged in the complaint and to recover civil penalties for every violation of New York City’s Consumer Protection Law."
Defendants promptly removed the case to federal court, and New York City filed a motion to remand the case to state court. The federal district court stayed the case in November 2021 pending the Second Circuit Court's decision re. appeal of the remand order in the Connecticut v. ExxonMobil case.
More info:
https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/293-21/new-york-city-sues-exxonmobil-shell-bp-the-american-petroleum-institute-systematically
http://climatecasechart.com/case/city-of-new-york-v-exxon-mobil-corp/
Rhode Island
Rhode Island v. Chevron Corp. et al.
Current Status: First Circuit upheld ruling sending case back to state court, and the U.S. Supreme Court overturned that ruling in a May 24, 2021 order granting defendants' petition following the outcome in the Baltimore case. Rhode Island's case was sent back to the First Circuit Court of Appeals for further consideration, and on May 23, 2022 the First Circuit once again rejected the defendants' bid for federal jurisdiction.
Background: Rhode Island became the first state to take legal action against fossil fuel companies with a climate lawsuit filed on July 2, 2018 in Rhode Island Superior Court. The lawsuit charges 21 fossil fuel companies with claims of nuisance, failure to warn, design defect, trespass, impairment of public trust resources, and violations of the State Environmental Rights Act. Rhode Island seeks compensatory damages, equitable relief (including abatement of nuisances), and punitive damages to make the companies pay for climate-related costs facing the state.
Defendants moved the case to federal court. Following a hearing in February 2019, District Judge William Smith ruled in July 2019 to remand the case back to state court. Defendants appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The District Court and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to stay the case pending this appeal, which allows the case to simultaneously proceed in Rhode Island state court. Defendants filed motions to dismiss in state court in January 2020. In August 2020 the state court stayed the case pending resolution of personal jurisdiction issues in unrelated cases, as defendants make the argument the case should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing on Sept. 11, 2020 to consider whether to uphold the federal district court decision remanding the case back to state court. The First Circuit ruled on Oct. 29, 2020 to uphold the remand order sending the case back to RI state court. Defendants are challenging this decision with a petition (filed Dec. 2020) to the U.S. Supreme Court - that petition was ultimately granted and the case returned to the First Circuit to consider the defendants' other arguments for federal jurisdiction. The First Circuit ruled against the defendants for the second time, issuing an order on May 23, 2022 reaffirming the remand decision.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/rhode-island-v-chevron-corp/
South Carolina
City of Charleston v. Brabham Oil Company et al.
Current Status: Case proceeding to battle over federal vs. state court jurisdiction.
Background: Charleston, South Carolina became the first city in the American South to go to court against the oil and gas industry over climate change with a lawsuit filed September 9, 2020 in South Carolina state court. The lawsuit targets 24 petroleum companies including oil majors such as BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, ExxonMobil, Marathon Petroleum, and Shell Oil. The lawsuit is brought under legal claims of public and private nuisance, strict liability and negligent failure to warn, trespass, and violations of South Carolina’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, and it seeks monetary damages to help pay for costs associated with climate impacts such as extreme heat, damaging flooding, severe storms and sea level rise.
Defendants promptly removed the case to federal court in Oct. 2020, and Charleston filed a motion to remand on Nov. 5, 2020. A decision on that motion is pending, but the case was stayed while the Fourth Circuit reconsidered the federal vs. state court issue in the Baltimore case. The case is now reactivated and the remand issue is pending.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/city-of-charleston-v-brabham-oil-co/
Vermont
Vermont v. ExxonMobil Corp. et al.
Current Status: Case filed on Sept. 14, 2021 in Vermont state court.
Background: Vermont became the sixth state to file a climate accountability lawsuit against Big Oil with a case initiated in Sept. 2021. The lawsuit, filed in Vermont Superior Court on September 14, 2021, alleges oil companies misled Vermont consumers on the risks of their products and continue to deceptively engage in greenwashing, in violation of the Vermont Consumer Protection Act.
Defendants punted the case to federal court and requested a stay on proceedings pending the appeal of Connecticut's remand order. Vermont has filed a motion to remand the case back to state court.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/vermont-v-exxon-mobil-corp/
California
The Golden State has been the epicenter of climate liability lawsuits brought by local governments against major fossil fuel companies, with eight communities taking legal action so far. A commercial crab fishing trade association representing West Coast fishermen has also sued the fossil fuel industry.
County of San Mateo et al. v. Chevron Corp. et al.
Current Status: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed - for a second time - the remand order sending the cases back to state court.
Background: Three lawsuits jointly filed in July 2017 by Marin and San Mateo counties and the city of Imperial Beach, all coastal communities that are highly vulnerable to coastal erosion/flooding and sea level rise. The suits target 37 fossil fuel companies with nuisance and product liability claims and seek monetary damages to help pay for costs associated with climate adaptation, estimated at billions of dollars. The communities filed their lawsuits in California state court (Contra Costa County Superior Court), and the defendants moved the suits to federal court (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California).
A battle has played out over federal vs. state court jurisdiction. The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand their suits back to state court. In March 2018, District Judge Vince Chhabria granted the remand, ordering the cases belong in state court. The defendants appealed that decision. Following a hearing in February 2020, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on May 26 in favor of the plaintiffs, upholding Chhabria’s decision. The panel denied defendants' request for a rehearing, but subsequently granted a stay or pause on the remand order while defendants prepare to file a petition with the Supreme Court. Defendants filed that petition in Dec. 2020, and the Supreme Court granted it on May 24, 2021 with an order the cases be sent back to the Ninth Circuit for reconsideration. The Ninth Circuit ruled on April 19, 2022 against the defendants once again, rejecting additional grounds for federal jurisdiction. Defendants petitioned for a rehearing, which was denied in June 2022. The cases are currently paused while defendants seek another intervention from the Supreme Court.
More info on these cases:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/county-san-mateo-v-chevron-corp/
County of Santa Cruz et al. v. Chevron Corp. et al.
Current Status: Consolidated with San Mateo cases; cases on track to proceed in state court following the Ninth Circuit's second ruling upholding remand.
Background: The city and county of Santa Cruz filed suit against 29 fossil fuel companies in December 2017, and a month later the city of Richmond joined with its own suit against the same companies. The communities filed the suits in California Superior Court, and defendants moved them to federal court. The District Court for the Northern District of California granted remand of the suits in July 2018, and defendants promptly appealed. The Ninth Circuit consolidated these cases with the San Mateo cases in considering the appeal. The three-judge panel ruled on May 26 to send the cases by the six California communities back to state court.
More info on these cases:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/county-santa-cruz-v-chevron-corp/
http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/Home/Components/News/News/7718/36
City of Oakland, City of San Francisco, v. BP et al.
Current Status: Cases remanded, on track to proceed in state court. In May 2020 the Ninth Circuit ordered the cases be sent back to District Court for reconsideration, where a renewed motion to remand was pending. The Supreme Court denied defendants' petition to review the Ninth Circuit's ruling in June 2021.
Background: Oakland and San Francisco each filed a lawsuit in September 2017 against five of the “Big Oil” companies – BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell. The cities filed in state court and alleged a narrower claim of public nuisance. The oil companies moved the suits to federal court. The cities moved to remand back to state court, but on February 27, 2018 District Judge William Alsup denied that remand motion. He also ordered a climate science tutorial, which took place in March 2018. In June 2018 Alsup granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, deciding that courts cannot “solve” the problem of climate change and agreeing with defendants’ argument that the claims arise under federal common law, which is displaced by the Clean Air Act. The cities appealed this decision. The Ninth Circuit held oral arguments in February 2020, with the same three-judge panel that heard the San Mateo/Santa Cruz cases also presiding on this appeal. That panel issued a decision on May 26 along with its decision in the San Mateo cases. The panel ruled in favor of Oakland/San Francisco that the cases do not raise issues of federal law and should proceed in state court. The oil companies petitioned for a rehearing in this case on July 9, 2020, arguing that the Ninth Circuit panel "overlooked or misapprehended several key issues" including rejecting federal common law as an independent ground for federal jurisdiction. In other words, the companies want the Ninth Circuit to uphold Judge Alsup's ruling that the case arises under federal common law - and therefore must be dismissed under Supreme Court precedent in a previous climate lawsuit brought by states against power plants (AEP v. Connecticut), which held that federal common law is displaced by the Clean Air Act in global warming nuisance cases. The Ninth Circuit panel denied the request for rehearing on August 12, 2020. The defendants are challenging the Ninth Circuit ruling with a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court (Docket # 20-1089). The Supreme Court denied that petition on June 14, 2021.
Meanwhile, the District Court held a case management conference on Dec. 16, 2020, where the parties agreed to briefing on a renewed motion to remand. The remand issue had been paused while the defendants seek intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied. Defendants were dealt another procedural defeat when District Judge Alsup issued a decision to remand the cases on October 24, 2022.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/people-state-california-v-bp-plc-oakland/
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association, Inc. v. Chevron Corp.
Current Status: Case pending, currently paused until the federal vs. state court jurisdictional question is resolved in similar California climate liability cases.
Background: Lawsuit filed in November 2018 by a commercial fishing trade association against 30 fossil fuel companies. Complaint filed in California Superior Court and includes nuisance and product liability claims. The fishing association details in its complaint the economic damage from the collapse of Dungeness crab stocks due to warming oceans and associated algal blooms that poison the crab. It is the first climate-related lawsuit filed by an industry against the fossil fuel industry.
The defendants moved the suit to federal court. The case had been stayed, or paused, to allow for similar climate tort cases in California to be resolved on the jurisdiction issue.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/pacific-coast-federation-of-fishermens-associations-inc-v-chevron-corp/
Drilled podcast, Season 2: Hot Water https://www.criticalfrequency.org/drilled
Colorado
Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County et al. v. Suncor et al.
Current Status: Case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, which has invited the U.S. (Solicitor General) to weigh in on the jurisdictional question. Defendants are fighting to have the case in federal court, and have filed a second petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. Their initial petition to Supreme Court was granted and the case had returned to the Tenth Circuit Court for further consideration. The Tenth Circuit issued a decision on Feb. 8, 2022 finding once again that the case should proceed in state court.
Background: Three Colorado communities – the city and county of Boulder along with the county of San Miguel – filed a lawsuit in April 2018 against ExxonMobil and Suncor (plus Suncor affiliates) seeking damages to help pay for climate-related costs. The complaint alleges claims of nuisance, trespass, and unjust enrichment, as well as a claim of deceptive trade practices under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. It was the first climate lawsuit filed by inland (non-coastal) communities against fossil fuel producers.
The parties have battled over jurisdiction. Plaintiffs filed in state court, and defendants moved the case to federal court. In September 2019 District Judge William Martinez ruled in favor of plaintiffs to remand the case back to state court. Defendants appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. While the case was under appeal, Martinez refused to stay proceedings, allowing the case to simultaneously proceed in state court. The Tenth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court also refused to stay the case. The Tenth Circuit held a hearing (by telephone) on May 6, and a decision on the defendants’ appeal was issued on July 7, upholding District Judge Martinez's decision to remand the case to state court. Defendants have also filed a motion to dismiss in state court. The plaintiffs filed a brief opposing that motion earlier this year (2020). The Boulder County District Court (state court) held a hearing on motions to dismiss on June 1, and a decision is pending. The case is currently on hold in state court pending the Supreme Court resolution of personal jurisdiction issues in unrelated litigation involving Ford Motor Co. The oil companies meanwhile filed a petition in Dec. 2020 to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to overturn the Tenth Circuit decision - that petition was granted on May 24 in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Baltimore case. The Tenth's Circuit's decision is overturned and that court must consider the defendants' other grounds for federal jurisdiction. On February 8, 2022 the Tenth Circuit once again rejected the oil companies' bid to keep the case in federal court, ruling to uphold the District Court's remand order. The companies are seeking another intervention from the Supreme Court in a bid to further delay the litigation advancing in state court.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/board-of-county-commissioners-of-boulder-county-v-suncor-energy-usa-inc/
https://earthrights.org/case/climate-change-litigation-colorado/
Connecticut
State of Connecticut v. ExxonMobil Corp.
Current Status: Case ordered to be sent back (remanded) to state court. Exxon is appealing this ruling.
Background: The state of Connecticut filed a lawsuit against oil major ExxonMobil to hold the company accountable for its alleged deception on climate change, including historical campaigns to undermine climate science and downplay the risks of burning fossil fuels as well as ongoing "greenwashing" campaigns that mislead the public about the company's role as a leader in solving climate change while Exxon remains substantially committed to its core fossil fuel business. The Attorney General of Connecticut, William Tong, filed the lawsuit on Sept. 14, 2020 in Connecticut state court accusing Exxon of violating the state's anti-fraud law, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Connecticut is seeking to compel Exxon to stop its deceptive acts, disgorge profits gained through its decades of deception and pay civil penalties, disclose all research the company or its affiliates have conducted on climate, and fund a “corrective education campaign to remedy the harm inflicted by decades of disinformation.”
Exxon removed the case to federal district court and filed a motion to dismiss there for lack of personal jurisdiction. Connecticut filed a motion to remand to state court on Dec. 2, 2020. A hearing on the motion to remand was held on May 21, 2021. On June 2, 2021 the federal district court granted the motion to remand. Exxon is appealing the remand decision to the Second Circuit. Hearing on this appeal is scheduled for September 23, 2022.
More info on this case:
https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Press-Releases/2020-Press-Releases/CONNECTICUT-SUES-EXXON-FOR-DECADES-OF-DECEIT-REGARDING-CLIMATE-CHANGE
http://climatecasechart.com/case/state-v-exxon-mobil-corp/
Delaware
State of Delaware v. BP America Inc. et al.
Current Status: Case proceeding to battle over federal vs. state court jurisdiction - The District Court (a federal court) granted the state's motion to remand, or send the case back to state court, on Jan. 5, 2022. Defendants appealed in a bid to keep the case in federal court, but the appeals court rejected their arguments for federal jurisdiction.
Background: Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings filed a climate accountability case against 30 major fossil fuel companies (29 oil and gas firms and one coal company) plus the main trade association for the U.S. oil and gas industry - the American Petroleum Institute (API). AG Jennings filed the lawsuit on September 10, 2020 in Delaware Superior Court. The lawsuit includes legal claims of public nuisance, trespass, negligent failure to warn, and violations of the state’s Consumer Fraud Act, and seeks monetary damages to help pay for climate-related costs the state is incurring as climate impacts worsen. The state alleges these impacts and costs have been magnified by "defendants’ decades-long campaign of deception."
Defendants promptly removed the case to federal court. Delaware filed to remand to state court and filed a brief supporting its remand motion on Jan. 5, 2021. A hearing on the remand issue was held on May 19, 2021. A decision was issued on Jan. 5, 2022 remanding the case. Defendants then appealed the ruling to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled on August 17, 2022 to affirm the remand decision.
More info on this case:
https://news.delaware.gov/2020/09/10/ag-jennings-announces-suit-to-hold-exxon-american-petroleum-institute-29-others-accountable-for-climate-change-costs/
http://climatecasechart.com/case/state-v-bp-america-inc/
District of Columbia
District of Columbia v. ExxonMobil Corp. et al.
Current Status: Case ordered to be remanded (sent back) to state court; defendants are appealing this ruling.
Background: Washington DC filed a lawsuit on June 25, 2020 - just one day after Minnesota filed a similar suit - for alleged climate deception in violation of the DC Consumer Protection Procedures Act. Defendants are the four largest investor-owned oil and gas companies - BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell. The lawsuit documents how these Big Oil companies engineered and funded campaigns to undermine climate science and downplay the consequences of burning their fossil fuel products, and how the communications strategies have shifted towards "greenwashing" and misleading messaging about the companies' commitments to solving climate change. The lawsuit seeks an order mandating an end to the companies' disinformation on climate and also seeks civil penalties. The case was filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
Defendants moved the case to federal court, and on Aug. 17, 2020 the District of Columbia filed a motion to remand to state court. A decision granting remand was issued on November 12, 2022. The case is temporarily paused as defendants seek an appeal.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/district-of-columbia-v-exxon-mobil-corp/
Hawaii
City and County of Honolulu v. Sunoco et al.
Current Status: Case remanded (sent back) to Hawaii state court, along with case brought by Maui, in ruling issued Feb. 12, 2021. The fossil fuel defendants tried unsuccessfully to challenge the remand decision on appeal.
Background: Honolulu filed a lawsuit in March 2020 against major oil companies seeking to hold them liable for climate impacts and associated costs in Hawaii’s capital city. As an island community, Honolulu is especially vulnerable to sea level and flooding as well as beach erosion and tropical storms. The state of Hawaii has estimated the cost of elevating roads at up to $15 billion, and on the island of Oahu nearly $13 billion worth of property is at risk from sea level rise.
In April the defendants moved case to federal court (US District Court for the District of Hawaii), Case # CV 20-00163. Case assigned to Judge Derrick Watson. On May 1, Judge Watson stayed the case pending resolution of the Oakland/San Francisco and San Mateo appeals. According to Watson’s order, “No later than fourteen (14) days after the Ninth Circuit issues a decision in both San Mateo and Oakland, the parties are directed to submit a plan--jointly, if possible, and separately, if not--that addresses the various scheduling and other issues contemplated by Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 and related local rules.” Judge Watson ordered the stay lifted on August 21, 2020, allowing the case to proceed to the battle over state vs. federal court jurisdiction. Briefing on the remand motion began in Fall 2020, and the case had been paused to allow for completion of briefing in the Maui case. With that briefing complete, Judge Watson ruled on Feb. 12, 2021 to remand both the Honolulu and Maui cases - yet another procedural loss for the fossil fuel companies in climate liability litigation. The companies are appealing, but the District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court refused to stay the litigation pending appeal. A hearing in Hawaii state court on defendants' motions to dismiss was held August 27, 2021. In early 2022 the state court judge denied the motions to dismiss; defendants are trying to appeal this ruling. In federal court, a hearing appealing the remand order was held in Feb. 2022; in July 2022 the Ninth Circuit ruled to affirm the remand order, rejecting defendants' claims of federal jurisdiction. The ruling applies to both Honolulu's case and Maui's case.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/city-county-of-honolulu-v-sunoco-lp/
https://www.resilientoahu.org/accountability
County of Maui v. Sunoco et al.
Current Status: Complaint filed Oct. 12, 2020; case remanded to state court in ruling on Feb. 12, 2021. The fossil fuel defendants tried unsuccessfully to challenge the remand ruling on appeal.
Background: Maui County sued over a dozen oil and gas companies in Hawaii state court on October 12, 2020, seeking to hold the companies accountable for climate change impacts and associated costs. The Hawaiian county encompasses several low-lying islands and is especially vulnerable to sea level rise, coastal erosion and flooding, and other damaging consequences of climate change allegedly exacerbated by the fossil fuel industry's delay tactics and deception campaigns designed to cast doubt on climate science and downplay the risks of fossil fuel products. Maui brought its lawsuit under state law claims of public and private nuisance, trespass, strict liability for failure to warn and negligent failure to warn; relief requested includes compensatory and punitive damages (make the companies pay) and disgorgement of profits.
Defendants led by Chevron promptly moved the case to federal court. Maui filed to remand (send back) the case to state court on Nov. 25, 2020. Defendants filed an opposition to the remand motion on Dec. 22, 2020. With briefing on remand completed, Judge Derrick Watson ruled against the defendants and ordered the case be remanded to Hawaii state court (Second Circuit Court for the State of Hawaii) on Feb. 12, 2021. The case is on the same procedural track as the Honolulu case.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/county-of-maui-v-sunoco-lp/
Maryland
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. BP et al.
Current Status: Defendants are seeking a second intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court following the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in April 2022 to once again affirm the remand order. The Fourth Circuit made this second ruling after considering (per order of the Supreme Court) all of the oil company defendants' arguments for federal jurisdiction.
Background: Lawsuit filed in July 2018 by the city of Baltimore against 26 fossil fuel companies, seeking damages to help pay for climate-related costs in the city. Baltimore filed in Maryland state court and brought nuisance and product liability claims as well as a claim under Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act.
Defendants moved the case to federal court, and the city filed a motion to remand. In June 2019 District Judge Ellen Hollander granted remand. Defendants appealed, and both Judge Hollander and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to stay the remand order, allowing the case to proceed in state court while the defendants sought an appeal of the remand decision. The Supreme Court also refused to stay the case. The Fourth Circuit heard oral arguments on the appeal in December 2019. On March 6, 2020 the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of Baltimore, upholding the District Court’s remand order. The defendants filed a petition (seeking another appeal) to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted the petition on Oct. 2, 2020. The Court heard the case in January 2021 and issued a decision on May 17, 2021 in favor of the defendants, vacating the Fourth Circuit's ruling and ordering the case be sent back to that court for further proceedings. The Fourth Circuit held oral arguments in January 2022, and a decision issued on April 7, 2022 once again upheld the remand order. On May 17, 2022 the Fourth Circuit denied defendants' petition for en banc review (a rehearing before the full court). Defendants are filing another petition to the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, in state court, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and in April 2020 Baltimore filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss. On August 6, 2020 Judge Brown of the Maryland Circuit Court granted defendants' motion to defer (delay) hearings on a motion for a protective order and a motion to dismiss. Hearings had been deferred pending the case's outcome in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court's ruling on personal jurisdiction in an unrelated case (Ford Motor).
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/mayor-city-council-of-baltimore-v-bp-plc/
City of Annapolis v. BP et al.
Current Status: Case remanded to state court (remand order is temporarily stayed).
Background: Maryland's capital city brought a lawsuit against major fossil fuel companies and the American Petroleum Institute alleging they misled the public on the climate impacts of burning fossil fuels and demanding these fossil fuel entities help pay for localized costs relating to climate damages. The complaint, filed on February 22, 2021, describes ongoing misleading behavior by the defendants with current greenwashing efforts, in addition to their historical campaigns of deception. The City filed its lawsuit in Maryland Circuit Court (state court) and has brought claims of public and private nuisance, trespass, failure to warn, and violation of Maryland's Consumer Protection Act. Relief requested include payment of damages (compensatory and punitive), equitable relief and abatement of nuisances, and disgorgement of profits. This is the first climate accountability lawsuit filed against major oil and gas companies by a state capital.
Fossil fuel defendants led by Chevron removed the lawsuit to federal court on March 25, 2021. The case had been stayed (paused) in federal district court pending the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal's resolution of the jurisdiction issue in Baltimore's case. Following the Fourth Circuit's second ruling affirming remand, and following briefing by both parties on the remand issue, the District Court ruled on September 29, 2022 to remand the litigation. The mandate is temporarily stayed as defendants are taking Baltimore's case back to the Supreme Court.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/city-of-annapolis-v-bp-plc/
Anne Arundel County v. BP et al.
Current Status: Case remanded to state court (remand order is temporarily stayed). This case is on the same procedural track (grouped together with) the Annapolis case.
Background: Lawsuit filed on April 26, 2021 by a coastal Maryland county (home to Annapolis) against major oil and gas companies and the American Petroleum Institute to hold them accountable for localized climate impacts and costs. The county alleges the defendants deceived the public on the climate risks of their products, and should be held liable for damages. Relief sought includes monetary damages (compensatory and punitive), equitable relief, disgorgement of profits, and recovery under the state's consumer protection law. The case was filed in Maryland state court, and brings legal claims of nuisance (public and private), strict liability for failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, trespass, and violations of Maryland's Consumer Protection Act. It is the third climate liability lawsuit filed in Maryland.
Defendants promptly removed the case to federal district court. On June 1, 2021 the district court stayed the case, pending the Fourth Circuit's ruling in Baltimore's climate liability case. With the Fourth Circuit affirming remand in April 2022, the parties proceeded to briefing on the remand issue - and the District Court granted remand on September 29, 2022.
More info:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/anne-arundel-county-v-bp-plc/
Massachusetts
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. ExxonMobil Corp.
Current Status: Case proceeding to discovery phase in state court. A hearing was held in March 2021 on Exxon's motions to dismiss, and the court ruled on June 23, 2021 to deny both motions. Exxon tried appealing the denial of its special motion to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP statute, which was unsuccessful.
Background: On Oct. 24, 2019 Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey filed a lawsuit alleging ExxonMobil misled Massachusetts consumers and investors regarding disclosing climate risk to the company’s business and deceptively advertising its products. The lawsuit followed a 3.5-year investigation, which Exxon was unsuccessful in stopping. The suit, filed in Suffolk Superior Court, alleges Exxon violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. The Commonwealth is seeking injunctive relief as well as civil penalties.
Exxon moved the case to federal court, and the Commonwealth filed a motion to remand to state court. The federal district court held a hearing (via telephone) in March 2020 and ruled to remand the case back to state court. Exxon has since filed two motions to dismiss the case in state court, including an attempt to squash the case under the state's anti-Slapp law, Bloomberg reported. Following a hearing on these motions to dismiss in May 2021, the state court issued orders denying Exxon's two motions to dismiss. Exxon appealed the denial of its special motion to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP statute, and the appeals court denied the petition for interlocutory relief. On May 24, 2022 the state Supreme Judicial Court ruled on the state's request for direct appellate review, concurring that the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to enforcement actions brought by the Attorney General. The case is proceeding to discovery in state court.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/commonwealth-v-exxon-mobil-corp/
https://www.mass.gov/lists/attorney-generals-office-lawsuit-against-exxonmobil
Minnesota
State of Minnesota v. American Petroleum Institute et al.
Current Status: Complaint filed in June 2020; hearing held Jan. 19, 2021 on motion to remand, and the federal District Court granted remand on March 31, 2021. Defendants are appealing the remand ruling in a bid to keep the case out of state court.
Background: Minnesota filed a climate lawsuit under the state's consumer protection laws on June 24, 2020 in Minnesota District Court for the County of Ramsey (a Minnesota state court). The lawsuit targets several defendants, including ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, Koch Industries, and two Koch subsidiaries - Flint Hills Resources LP and Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend. Similar to the Washington DC case and the Massachusetts case, the Minnesota case focuses on alleged fraud and alleges the defendants misled consumers regarding the risks of climate change and the dangers of fossil fuel products. Minnesota's lawsuit includes claims for fraud, failure to warn, and multiple separate violations of Minnesota statutes that prohibit consumer fraud, deceptive trade practices, and false statements in advertising. The relief sought includes maximum civil penalties, disgorgement of profits, an order for defendants to stop their alleged misleading advertising and communications and also for them to fund a public education campaign in the state on the subject of climate change.
Defendants moved the case to federal court in late July, and on August 26, 2020 Minnesota filed a motion to remand to state court. Briefing on the motion has completed, and the federal district court held a hearing on the motion on Jan. 19, 2021. The court ruled on March 31, 2021 to remand the case to state court - though the defendants immediately filed for an emergency stay, which the court granted on April 7. Defendants are appealing the remand decision to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. A decision on remand is pending.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/state-v-american-petroleum-institute/
New Jersey
City of Hoboken v. ExxonMobil et al.
Current Status: Third Circuit Court affirmed remand in a ruling in August 2022. The case was originally remanded by the federal district court on Sept. 8, 2021, and defendants unsuccessfully appealed that ruling.
Background: The city of Hoboken, New Jersey, located on the banks of the Hudson River across from New York City, filed a climate lawsuit targeting major oil and gas companies and the American Petroleum Institute for alleged deception on the climate impacts stemming from the burning of fossil fuels. Complaint was originally filed September 2, 2020. Hoboken's suit alleges that the oil and gas companies and their lobbying group not only knew early on about the climate harms resulting from their products, but actively engaged in campaigns of deception to undermine climate science and avoid policy responses. Defendants named in the lawsuit include BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Shell, and Phillips 66 along with API. Hoboken filed its case on September 2, 2020 in Hudson County Superior Court, a New Jersey state court. The lawsuit includes legal claims of public and private nuisance, trespass, negligence, and violation of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, and it seeks to recover costs associated with climate impacts like extreme flooding and sea level rise.
Defendants promptly removed the case to federal court. Hoboken filed a motion to remand (Nov. 5, 2020) and a supporting memorandum of law (Dec. 11, 2020). On Sept. 8, 2021 the federal court ruled in favor of Hoboken to send the case back to state court. Defendants appealed the remand order to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 17, 2022 the Third Circuit ruled to affirm remand in Delaware's case, and this ruling also applies to Hoboken's case.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/city-of-hoboken-v-exxon-mobil-corp/
Platkin v. ExxonMobil et al.
Current Status: Case filed on October 18, 2022.
Background: New Jersey is suing major oil and gas companies and the industry trade association American Petroleum Institute over their role in exacerbating the climate crisis through decades-long campaigns of deception to undermine climate science and block climate policies. The lawsuit, filed New Jersey Superior Court (state court), targets ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66, Shell, and API. Plaintiffs include New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin, Acting Director of the Division of Consumer Affairs Cari Fais, and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The state is seeking monetary damages, disgorgement of profits unlawfully acquired, and abatement of the alleged tortious conduct, and the legal claims include state law tort claims (nuisance, trespass, failure to warn, negligence, impairment of the public trust) and violations of the state's Consumer Fraud Act.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/platkin-v-exxon-mobil-corp/
New York
City of New York v. ExxonMobil et al.
Current Status: Case paused pending the Second Circuit Court of Appeal's resolution of the jurisdiction issue in Connecticut's case.
Background: New York City brought a new climate accountability lawsuit against Big Oil (ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and the American Petroleum Institute) on Earth Day 2021, seeking to hold the defendants accountable for greenwashing and deceptive trade practices in violation of the city's consumer protection law. The lawsuit (filed on April 22, 2021) was filed in New York state court, and according to a press release, the City "seeks seeks relief to stop Defendants from engaging the deceptive practices alleged in the complaint and to recover civil penalties for every violation of New York City’s Consumer Protection Law."
Defendants promptly removed the case to federal court, and New York City filed a motion to remand the case to state court. The federal district court stayed the case in November 2021 pending the Second Circuit Court's decision re. appeal of the remand order in the Connecticut v. ExxonMobil case.
More info:
https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/293-21/new-york-city-sues-exxonmobil-shell-bp-the-american-petroleum-institute-systematically
http://climatecasechart.com/case/city-of-new-york-v-exxon-mobil-corp/
Rhode Island
Rhode Island v. Chevron Corp. et al.
Current Status: First Circuit upheld ruling sending case back to state court, and the U.S. Supreme Court overturned that ruling in a May 24, 2021 order granting defendants' petition following the outcome in the Baltimore case. Rhode Island's case was sent back to the First Circuit Court of Appeals for further consideration, and on May 23, 2022 the First Circuit once again rejected the defendants' bid for federal jurisdiction.
Background: Rhode Island became the first state to take legal action against fossil fuel companies with a climate lawsuit filed on July 2, 2018 in Rhode Island Superior Court. The lawsuit charges 21 fossil fuel companies with claims of nuisance, failure to warn, design defect, trespass, impairment of public trust resources, and violations of the State Environmental Rights Act. Rhode Island seeks compensatory damages, equitable relief (including abatement of nuisances), and punitive damages to make the companies pay for climate-related costs facing the state.
Defendants moved the case to federal court. Following a hearing in February 2019, District Judge William Smith ruled in July 2019 to remand the case back to state court. Defendants appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The District Court and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to stay the case pending this appeal, which allows the case to simultaneously proceed in Rhode Island state court. Defendants filed motions to dismiss in state court in January 2020. In August 2020 the state court stayed the case pending resolution of personal jurisdiction issues in unrelated cases, as defendants make the argument the case should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing on Sept. 11, 2020 to consider whether to uphold the federal district court decision remanding the case back to state court. The First Circuit ruled on Oct. 29, 2020 to uphold the remand order sending the case back to RI state court. Defendants are challenging this decision with a petition (filed Dec. 2020) to the U.S. Supreme Court - that petition was ultimately granted and the case returned to the First Circuit to consider the defendants' other arguments for federal jurisdiction. The First Circuit ruled against the defendants for the second time, issuing an order on May 23, 2022 reaffirming the remand decision.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/rhode-island-v-chevron-corp/
South Carolina
City of Charleston v. Brabham Oil Company et al.
Current Status: Case proceeding to battle over federal vs. state court jurisdiction.
Background: Charleston, South Carolina became the first city in the American South to go to court against the oil and gas industry over climate change with a lawsuit filed September 9, 2020 in South Carolina state court. The lawsuit targets 24 petroleum companies including oil majors such as BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, ExxonMobil, Marathon Petroleum, and Shell Oil. The lawsuit is brought under legal claims of public and private nuisance, strict liability and negligent failure to warn, trespass, and violations of South Carolina’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, and it seeks monetary damages to help pay for costs associated with climate impacts such as extreme heat, damaging flooding, severe storms and sea level rise.
Defendants promptly removed the case to federal court in Oct. 2020, and Charleston filed a motion to remand on Nov. 5, 2020. A decision on that motion is pending, but the case was stayed while the Fourth Circuit reconsidered the federal vs. state court issue in the Baltimore case. The case is now reactivated and the remand issue is pending.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/city-of-charleston-v-brabham-oil-co/
Vermont
Vermont v. ExxonMobil Corp. et al.
Current Status: Case filed on Sept. 14, 2021 in Vermont state court.
Background: Vermont became the sixth state to file a climate accountability lawsuit against Big Oil with a case initiated in Sept. 2021. The lawsuit, filed in Vermont Superior Court on September 14, 2021, alleges oil companies misled Vermont consumers on the risks of their products and continue to deceptively engage in greenwashing, in violation of the Vermont Consumer Protection Act.
Defendants punted the case to federal court and requested a stay on proceedings pending the appeal of Connecticut's remand order. Vermont has filed a motion to remand the case back to state court.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/vermont-v-exxon-mobil-corp/
.
Australia
Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility v. Santos
Current Status: Case pending in the Federal Court of Australia.
Background: An Australian shareholder advocacy group (ACCR) brought Australia's first greenwashing case against gas company Santos, challenging the company's claims portraying fossil gas as "clean" and the credibility of its net zero emissions plan, which relies heavily on carbon capture and storage (CCS) and hydrogen produced from fossil gas with CCS ("blue" hydrogen). The lawsuit, filed on August 25, 2021 in the Federal Court of Australia, is brought under Australian consumer protection and corporation laws. Law firm Environmental Defenders Office is representing ACCR in the case, and describes this as the "first court case in the world to challenge the veracity of a company’s net zero emissions target, as well as the first in Australia raising the issue of climate greenwashing against the oil and gas industry."
On August 25, 2022, one year after the case was filed, the plaintiff ACCR expanded its case with additional allegations revealed by Santos during the discovery process. According to a press release: "ACCR has now filed to expand its case to include alleged greenwashing in Santos’ 2020 Investor Day Briefing and 2021 Climate Change Report, following additional information produced by Santos in the litigation discovery process."
More info on this case:
https://climate-laws.org/geographies/australia/litigation_cases/australasian-centre-for-corporate-responsibility-v-santos
https://www.accr.org.au/news/australasian-centre-for-corporate-responsibility-files-landmark-case-against-santos-in-federal-court/
Youth Verdict v. Waratah Coal
Current Status: Case closed, with a "landmark" ruling issued against the coal mine in November 2022.
Background: Case challenging a massive coal mining development called the Galilee Coal Project in Queensland proposed by Waratah Coal, objecting to the project on climate and human rights grounds. The case, filed in Queensland Land Court, is brought by a youth climate justice organization and a nature reserve (the Bimblebox Alliance) and is supported by local First Nations peoples whose cultural heritage would be damaged. The case alleges violation of the Queensland Human Rights Act.
A six-week-long hearing was held in Queensland Land Court starting April 26, 2022. On November 25, 2022 the court ruled in favor of Youth Verdict, finding the Galilee mine would result in substantial environmental and climate harms, and threaten human rights including rights of future generations. The court determined that the rights consideration outweighed economic considerations. The ruling recommends that the project be rejected, though it is up to the government to make the final decision.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/youth-verdict-v-waratah-coal/
Australian Conservation Foundation v. Woodside Energy
Current Status: Case pending, filed in June 2022.
Background: Case brought by Australian Conservation Foundation (with legal representation from Environmental Defenders Office) against Woodside Energy’s $12 billion Scarborough offshore gas project, claiming the emissions from extracting and burning the gas would contribute to climate harm to the Great Barrier Reef. The project - offshore of Western Australia with the gas largely consumed overseas - would result in an estimated 1.37 billion metric tons of GHG emissions over 25 years. Under the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority policy, Australian offshore oil and gas projects are typically exempt from review under the federal environmental protection law, unless they are likely to significantly impact World or National Heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef. ACF argues that the Scarborough project should not be exempt from assessment under the national environmental law due to the project's expected climate harm to the Great Barrier Reef.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/australian-conservation-foundation-incorporated-v-woodside-energy-ltd-anor/
France
Greenpeace France et al. v. TotalEnergies
Current Status: Case pending; complaint filed on March 2, 2022.
Background: Climate lawsuit brought against French oil major Total (renamed TotalEnergies) alleging greenwashing and misleading advertising. French environmental organizations Greenpeace France, Friends of the Earth France, and Notre Affaire à Tous, represented by ClientEarth, filed the case in March 2022 in the Court of Paris, arguing Total's messaging violates the French Consumer Code and other provisions of French law. The case targets the oil company's rebranding/renaming and pledge to be carbon neutral or aligned with Net Zero by 2050, noting that 90% of Total's activity remains in fossil fuels. The case also alleges the company made misleading claims around fossil gas and biofuels.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/greenpeace-france-and-others-v-totalenergies-se-and-totalenergies-electricite-et-gaz-france/
Notre Affaire à Tous et al. v. Total
Current Status: Complaint filed in January 2020; case is pending.
Background: French environmental NGOs Notre Affaire à Tous, Sherpa, Zea, and Les Eco Maires plus more than a dozen local French governments have taken legal action against Total, France’s largest oil and gas company, for failing to align its business activities with emissions reductions consistent with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Plaintiffs assert that Total’s failure to mitigate climate risks arising from its business violates the French duty of vigilance law. That law requires companies to identify and implement plans to mitigate harms to human rights, fundamental freedoms, the environment and public health. Plaintiffs sent a letter to Total in June 2019 indicating intention to sue unless Total revised its vigilance plan to be in compliance with the law and goals of the Paris Agreement to limit warming to well below 2°C. The lawsuit was filed January 28, 2020 in Nanterre, France. If allowed to proceed, it would be the first French climate lawsuit against a fossil fuel company.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/notre-affaire-a-tous-and-others-v-total/
Germany
Lliuya v. RWE
Current Status: Case accepted by appeals court and is proceeding through lengthy evidentiary phase.
Background: Case filed in 2015 by Peruvian farmer Saúl Luciano Lliuya against German energy company RWE seeking compensation for climate-related flooding in Lliuya’s hometown of Huaraz, Peru. The flooding of a glacial lake in Huaraz is a result of melting mountain glaciers, melting that has accelerated due to global warming and the buildup of greenhouse gas emissions, a small percentage of which can be traced back to RWE. The energy company is Germany’s largest supplier of electricity and one of Europe’s largest historical emitters. Lliuya is asking the court to order RWE to reimburse him for a portion of the costs he and the Huaraz authorities had incurred to establish flood protections.
The District Court dismissed the case in December 2016. Lliuya appealed, and on November 30, 2017 the appeals court decided the case was admissible and ordered it to proceed into the evidentiary phase. According to the NGO Germanwatch, which is supporting the plaintiff, “the Higher Regional Court of Hamm [appeals court] has made a request to the State of Peru to be allowed to inspect the premises that are the subject of the lawsuit. The Court is at present awaiting response from the competent authorities, which can take quite some time to process.”
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/lliuya-v-rwe-ag/
https://germanwatch.org/en/huaraz
Deutsche Umwelthilfe v. BMW; Deutsche Umwelthilfe v. Mercedes-Benz
Current Status: Cases filed in September 2021
Background: German environmental group Deutsche Umwelthilfe filed litigation against two German automakers (in two separate cases) demanding they stop producing fossil fuel powered cars by 2030 if they cannot prove by then that their vehicle fleets are completely carbon neutral. The 2030 deadline is five years ahead of the 2035 ban on internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles proposed by the EU. The legal actions are based on climate obligations under the Paris Agreement and the German Climate Protection Act, and the plaintiff argues the automakers risk violating the rights of future generations and the right to climate protection.
In September 2022 the Stuttgart Court dismissed the case against Mercedes-Benz, but Deutsche Umwelthilfe says it will appeal that ruling.
More info on these cases:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/deutsche-umwelthilfe-duh-v-bmw/
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/deutsche-umwelthilfe-duh-v-mercedes-benz-ag/
Kaiser et al. v. Volkswagen AG
Current Status: Case filed in November 2021
Background: Lawsuit brought against German automaker VW by three plaintiffs associated with Greenpeace Germany and Fridays for Future Germany, seeking to compel the company to commit to phase out production of internal combustion engine vehicles by 2030. Plaintiffs claim that VW's failure to accelerate its ICE vehicles phaseout violates the rights to climate protection and the rights of future generations, building off the German constitutional court ruling (in Neubauer v. Germany) holding the government accountable for failing to set climate policy that is protective of youth and future generations. The case against Volkswagen is grounded in the Paris Agreement and in German tort law. Plaintiffs filed the case in the Regional Court of Braunschweig.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/kaiser-et-al-v-volkswagen-ag/
The Netherlands
Fossielvrij NL v. KLM
Current Status: Case pending.
Background: Dutch climate campaigners - represented by ClientEarth - are taking legal action against the Dutch airline KLM, targeting the airline's advertising promoting air travel as environmentally sustainable and the airline business as climate-friendly. "The lawsuit will argue that KLM’s ad campaigns and ‘compensation’ schemes violate European consumer law as they give a false impression over the sustainability of its flights and plans to address its climate harm," a ClientEarth press release states. The legal action challenges KLM's net zero claims and focuses on the airline's Fly Responsibly campaign, which includes the option to purchase carbon offsets. Fossielvrij NL submitted the pre-action letter to KLM during the company’s AGM in May 2022, and filed the official complaint in the District Court of Amsterdam in July 2022.
More info on this case:
https://gofossilfree.org/nl/we-brengen-klm-voor-de-rechter/
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/fossielvrij-nl-v-klm/
New Zealand
Smith v. Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited
Current Status: Case pending before New Zealand Supreme Court.
Background: Case brought against seven major corporate emitters in New Zealand, such as dairy farming conglomerate Fonterra and other companies in the energy sector, by New Zealander Michael John Smith who is of indigenous descent (climate change spokesman for the Iwi Chairs’ Forum). Smith filed the lawsuit in March 2020 under claims of public nuisance, negligence, and breach of duty to cease contributing to climate change. The High Court initially dismissed the nuisance and negligence claims but permitted the other claim finding it should be decided at trial. While Smith appealed dismissal of the first two claims, defendants cross-appealed the Court's upholding of the third claim. In October 2021 the appeals court decided in favor of defendants, upholding the cross-appeal and rejecting Smith's appeal. Smith then took the case to the Supreme Court, which granted the application on March 31, 2022.
More info on this case:
https://climate-laws.org/geographies/new-zealand/litigation_cases/smith-v-fonterra-co-operative-group-limited
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/smith-v-fonterra-co-operative-group-limited/
Switzerland
Four Islanders of Pari v. Holcim
Current Status: Case pending
Background: Lawsuit brought by climate vulnerable islanders from the Indonesian island of Pari against a large Swiss cement and building materials company, one of the 90 "carbon majors" responsible for two-thirds of historical anthropogenic emissions (1854-2010). The islanders, supported in the litigation by three NGOs - HEKS/EPER (Switzerland), the European Center for Constitutional and European Rights (ECCHR) and WALHI (Indonesia) - filed their case in July 2022. Plaintiffs seek not only compensation for climate-related damages and monetary contribution to adaptation measures on the island, but also to compel the company to reduce GHG emissions 43% (below 2019 levels) by 2030. The case is similar to the Lliuya v. RWE case, involving a plaintiff(s) from a particularly climate vulnerable area targeting a corporate emitter in another country. But it goes even further than the Lliuya case in remedies sought, requesting compensation and specified emissions reductions.
More info on this case:
https://climate-laws.org/geographies/switzerland/litigation_cases/four-islanders-of-pari-v-holcim
UK
ClientEarth v. Shell Board of Directors
Current Status: Case pending, initiated in March 2022
Background: A first-of-its-kind legal action seeks to hold Shell's board of directors personally liable for alleged mismanagement pertaining to aligning the company's business with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement. ClientEarth - acting as a shareholder- is challenging the oil company's 13 board directors, alleging violation of UK company law. According to a ClientEarth press release: "ClientEarth argues that the Board’s failure to adopt and implement a climate strategy that truly aligns with the Paris Agreement is a breach of their duties under the UK Companies Act. Under that Act, Shell’s Board is legally required to act in a way that promotes the company’s success, and to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence." ClientEarth claims that Shell's net zero strategy does not square with steep emissions cuts informed by climate science and does not align with the 1.5°C temperature goal of the Paris Agreement.
ClientEarth initiated the claim by sending a pre-action letter to Shell, and is planning to file a lawsuit with the High Court of England and Wales.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/clientearth-v-board-of-directors-of-shell/
https://www.clientearth.org/media/puojyzvy/clientearth-shareholder-litigation-against-shell-s-board-faqs.pdf
Australia
Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility v. Santos
Current Status: Case pending in the Federal Court of Australia.
Background: An Australian shareholder advocacy group (ACCR) brought Australia's first greenwashing case against gas company Santos, challenging the company's claims portraying fossil gas as "clean" and the credibility of its net zero emissions plan, which relies heavily on carbon capture and storage (CCS) and hydrogen produced from fossil gas with CCS ("blue" hydrogen). The lawsuit, filed on August 25, 2021 in the Federal Court of Australia, is brought under Australian consumer protection and corporation laws. Law firm Environmental Defenders Office is representing ACCR in the case, and describes this as the "first court case in the world to challenge the veracity of a company’s net zero emissions target, as well as the first in Australia raising the issue of climate greenwashing against the oil and gas industry."
On August 25, 2022, one year after the case was filed, the plaintiff ACCR expanded its case with additional allegations revealed by Santos during the discovery process. According to a press release: "ACCR has now filed to expand its case to include alleged greenwashing in Santos’ 2020 Investor Day Briefing and 2021 Climate Change Report, following additional information produced by Santos in the litigation discovery process."
More info on this case:
https://climate-laws.org/geographies/australia/litigation_cases/australasian-centre-for-corporate-responsibility-v-santos
https://www.accr.org.au/news/australasian-centre-for-corporate-responsibility-files-landmark-case-against-santos-in-federal-court/
Youth Verdict v. Waratah Coal
Current Status: Case closed, with a "landmark" ruling issued against the coal mine in November 2022.
Background: Case challenging a massive coal mining development called the Galilee Coal Project in Queensland proposed by Waratah Coal, objecting to the project on climate and human rights grounds. The case, filed in Queensland Land Court, is brought by a youth climate justice organization and a nature reserve (the Bimblebox Alliance) and is supported by local First Nations peoples whose cultural heritage would be damaged. The case alleges violation of the Queensland Human Rights Act.
A six-week-long hearing was held in Queensland Land Court starting April 26, 2022. On November 25, 2022 the court ruled in favor of Youth Verdict, finding the Galilee mine would result in substantial environmental and climate harms, and threaten human rights including rights of future generations. The court determined that the rights consideration outweighed economic considerations. The ruling recommends that the project be rejected, though it is up to the government to make the final decision.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/youth-verdict-v-waratah-coal/
Australian Conservation Foundation v. Woodside Energy
Current Status: Case pending, filed in June 2022.
Background: Case brought by Australian Conservation Foundation (with legal representation from Environmental Defenders Office) against Woodside Energy’s $12 billion Scarborough offshore gas project, claiming the emissions from extracting and burning the gas would contribute to climate harm to the Great Barrier Reef. The project - offshore of Western Australia with the gas largely consumed overseas - would result in an estimated 1.37 billion metric tons of GHG emissions over 25 years. Under the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority policy, Australian offshore oil and gas projects are typically exempt from review under the federal environmental protection law, unless they are likely to significantly impact World or National Heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef. ACF argues that the Scarborough project should not be exempt from assessment under the national environmental law due to the project's expected climate harm to the Great Barrier Reef.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/australian-conservation-foundation-incorporated-v-woodside-energy-ltd-anor/
France
Greenpeace France et al. v. TotalEnergies
Current Status: Case pending; complaint filed on March 2, 2022.
Background: Climate lawsuit brought against French oil major Total (renamed TotalEnergies) alleging greenwashing and misleading advertising. French environmental organizations Greenpeace France, Friends of the Earth France, and Notre Affaire à Tous, represented by ClientEarth, filed the case in March 2022 in the Court of Paris, arguing Total's messaging violates the French Consumer Code and other provisions of French law. The case targets the oil company's rebranding/renaming and pledge to be carbon neutral or aligned with Net Zero by 2050, noting that 90% of Total's activity remains in fossil fuels. The case also alleges the company made misleading claims around fossil gas and biofuels.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/greenpeace-france-and-others-v-totalenergies-se-and-totalenergies-electricite-et-gaz-france/
Notre Affaire à Tous et al. v. Total
Current Status: Complaint filed in January 2020; case is pending.
Background: French environmental NGOs Notre Affaire à Tous, Sherpa, Zea, and Les Eco Maires plus more than a dozen local French governments have taken legal action against Total, France’s largest oil and gas company, for failing to align its business activities with emissions reductions consistent with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Plaintiffs assert that Total’s failure to mitigate climate risks arising from its business violates the French duty of vigilance law. That law requires companies to identify and implement plans to mitigate harms to human rights, fundamental freedoms, the environment and public health. Plaintiffs sent a letter to Total in June 2019 indicating intention to sue unless Total revised its vigilance plan to be in compliance with the law and goals of the Paris Agreement to limit warming to well below 2°C. The lawsuit was filed January 28, 2020 in Nanterre, France. If allowed to proceed, it would be the first French climate lawsuit against a fossil fuel company.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/notre-affaire-a-tous-and-others-v-total/
Germany
Lliuya v. RWE
Current Status: Case accepted by appeals court and is proceeding through lengthy evidentiary phase.
Background: Case filed in 2015 by Peruvian farmer Saúl Luciano Lliuya against German energy company RWE seeking compensation for climate-related flooding in Lliuya’s hometown of Huaraz, Peru. The flooding of a glacial lake in Huaraz is a result of melting mountain glaciers, melting that has accelerated due to global warming and the buildup of greenhouse gas emissions, a small percentage of which can be traced back to RWE. The energy company is Germany’s largest supplier of electricity and one of Europe’s largest historical emitters. Lliuya is asking the court to order RWE to reimburse him for a portion of the costs he and the Huaraz authorities had incurred to establish flood protections.
The District Court dismissed the case in December 2016. Lliuya appealed, and on November 30, 2017 the appeals court decided the case was admissible and ordered it to proceed into the evidentiary phase. According to the NGO Germanwatch, which is supporting the plaintiff, “the Higher Regional Court of Hamm [appeals court] has made a request to the State of Peru to be allowed to inspect the premises that are the subject of the lawsuit. The Court is at present awaiting response from the competent authorities, which can take quite some time to process.”
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/lliuya-v-rwe-ag/
https://germanwatch.org/en/huaraz
Deutsche Umwelthilfe v. BMW; Deutsche Umwelthilfe v. Mercedes-Benz
Current Status: Cases filed in September 2021
Background: German environmental group Deutsche Umwelthilfe filed litigation against two German automakers (in two separate cases) demanding they stop producing fossil fuel powered cars by 2030 if they cannot prove by then that their vehicle fleets are completely carbon neutral. The 2030 deadline is five years ahead of the 2035 ban on internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles proposed by the EU. The legal actions are based on climate obligations under the Paris Agreement and the German Climate Protection Act, and the plaintiff argues the automakers risk violating the rights of future generations and the right to climate protection.
In September 2022 the Stuttgart Court dismissed the case against Mercedes-Benz, but Deutsche Umwelthilfe says it will appeal that ruling.
More info on these cases:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/deutsche-umwelthilfe-duh-v-bmw/
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/deutsche-umwelthilfe-duh-v-mercedes-benz-ag/
Kaiser et al. v. Volkswagen AG
Current Status: Case filed in November 2021
Background: Lawsuit brought against German automaker VW by three plaintiffs associated with Greenpeace Germany and Fridays for Future Germany, seeking to compel the company to commit to phase out production of internal combustion engine vehicles by 2030. Plaintiffs claim that VW's failure to accelerate its ICE vehicles phaseout violates the rights to climate protection and the rights of future generations, building off the German constitutional court ruling (in Neubauer v. Germany) holding the government accountable for failing to set climate policy that is protective of youth and future generations. The case against Volkswagen is grounded in the Paris Agreement and in German tort law. Plaintiffs filed the case in the Regional Court of Braunschweig.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/kaiser-et-al-v-volkswagen-ag/
The Netherlands
Fossielvrij NL v. KLM
Current Status: Case pending.
Background: Dutch climate campaigners - represented by ClientEarth - are taking legal action against the Dutch airline KLM, targeting the airline's advertising promoting air travel as environmentally sustainable and the airline business as climate-friendly. "The lawsuit will argue that KLM’s ad campaigns and ‘compensation’ schemes violate European consumer law as they give a false impression over the sustainability of its flights and plans to address its climate harm," a ClientEarth press release states. The legal action challenges KLM's net zero claims and focuses on the airline's Fly Responsibly campaign, which includes the option to purchase carbon offsets. Fossielvrij NL submitted the pre-action letter to KLM during the company’s AGM in May 2022, and filed the official complaint in the District Court of Amsterdam in July 2022.
More info on this case:
https://gofossilfree.org/nl/we-brengen-klm-voor-de-rechter/
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/fossielvrij-nl-v-klm/
New Zealand
Smith v. Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited
Current Status: Case pending before New Zealand Supreme Court.
Background: Case brought against seven major corporate emitters in New Zealand, such as dairy farming conglomerate Fonterra and other companies in the energy sector, by New Zealander Michael John Smith who is of indigenous descent (climate change spokesman for the Iwi Chairs’ Forum). Smith filed the lawsuit in March 2020 under claims of public nuisance, negligence, and breach of duty to cease contributing to climate change. The High Court initially dismissed the nuisance and negligence claims but permitted the other claim finding it should be decided at trial. While Smith appealed dismissal of the first two claims, defendants cross-appealed the Court's upholding of the third claim. In October 2021 the appeals court decided in favor of defendants, upholding the cross-appeal and rejecting Smith's appeal. Smith then took the case to the Supreme Court, which granted the application on March 31, 2022.
More info on this case:
https://climate-laws.org/geographies/new-zealand/litigation_cases/smith-v-fonterra-co-operative-group-limited
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/smith-v-fonterra-co-operative-group-limited/
Switzerland
Four Islanders of Pari v. Holcim
Current Status: Case pending
Background: Lawsuit brought by climate vulnerable islanders from the Indonesian island of Pari against a large Swiss cement and building materials company, one of the 90 "carbon majors" responsible for two-thirds of historical anthropogenic emissions (1854-2010). The islanders, supported in the litigation by three NGOs - HEKS/EPER (Switzerland), the European Center for Constitutional and European Rights (ECCHR) and WALHI (Indonesia) - filed their case in July 2022. Plaintiffs seek not only compensation for climate-related damages and monetary contribution to adaptation measures on the island, but also to compel the company to reduce GHG emissions 43% (below 2019 levels) by 2030. The case is similar to the Lliuya v. RWE case, involving a plaintiff(s) from a particularly climate vulnerable area targeting a corporate emitter in another country. But it goes even further than the Lliuya case in remedies sought, requesting compensation and specified emissions reductions.
More info on this case:
https://climate-laws.org/geographies/switzerland/litigation_cases/four-islanders-of-pari-v-holcim
UK
ClientEarth v. Shell Board of Directors
Current Status: Case pending, initiated in March 2022
Background: A first-of-its-kind legal action seeks to hold Shell's board of directors personally liable for alleged mismanagement pertaining to aligning the company's business with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement. ClientEarth - acting as a shareholder- is challenging the oil company's 13 board directors, alleging violation of UK company law. According to a ClientEarth press release: "ClientEarth argues that the Board’s failure to adopt and implement a climate strategy that truly aligns with the Paris Agreement is a breach of their duties under the UK Companies Act. Under that Act, Shell’s Board is legally required to act in a way that promotes the company’s success, and to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence." ClientEarth claims that Shell's net zero strategy does not square with steep emissions cuts informed by climate science and does not align with the 1.5°C temperature goal of the Paris Agreement.
ClientEarth initiated the claim by sending a pre-action letter to Shell, and is planning to file a lawsuit with the High Court of England and Wales.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/clientearth-v-board-of-directors-of-shell/
https://www.clientearth.org/media/puojyzvy/clientearth-shareholder-litigation-against-shell-s-board-faqs.pdf
