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: Cases ordered to return to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals by the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted the defendants' petition following the Court's ruling in the Baltimore climate liability case. The Ninth Circuit's previous ruling against the defendants is overturned.
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 has since denied a motion for additional briefing and oral argument.
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 will return to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings per the Supreme Court.
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: Ninth Circuit ordered cases sent back to District Court for reconsideration, where a renewed motion to remand is pending. The Supreme Court denied defendants' petition to review the Ninth Circuit's ruling.
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. The cases are currently in federal district court awaiting further instruction from Judge Alsup.
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 stayed pending Ninth Circuit ruling in San Francisco/San Mateo cases; stay continued - with continuing case management conference slated for December 8, 2021.
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 paused in Colorado state court. Defendants filed a petition to U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted and the case returns to the Tenth Circuit Court for further consideration.
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.
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.
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, with a decision on the motion to remand to state court pending.
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. The remand issue is set to be fully briefed and a hearing was held on May 19, 2021. A decision is pending.
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: Complaint filed in June 2020; case proceeding to battle over federal vs. state court jurisdiction, and both parties now await a decision on the motion to remand (send the case back) to state court.
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 on remand is pending.
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 are challenging 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' motion to dismiss is scheduled for August 27, 2021.
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 are challenging 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.
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: U.S. Supreme Court ordered the case be sent back to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to consider 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 outcome affects several other climate accountability cases in which the oil company defendants have requested Supreme Court review, and effectually delays these cases and Baltimore's case from advancing in state court.
Meanwhile, in state court, defendants filed a motion to dismiss earlier this year, and in April 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: Complaint filed February 22, 2021. Case is currently stayed (paused) in federal district court pending the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal's resolution of the jurisdiction issue in Baltimore's case.
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 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. A battle is expected to play out over federal vs. state court jurisdiction.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/city-of-annapolis-v-bp-plc/
Anne Arundel County v. BP et al.
Current Status: Complaint filed April 26, 2021. Case is stayed (paused) in federal district court pending the Fourth Circuit's ruling in Baltimore's climate liability case.
Background: Lawsuit filed 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.
More info:
http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/case/anne-arundel-county-v-bp-plc/
Massachusetts
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. ExxonMobil Corp.
Current Status: Case proceeding 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.
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.
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.
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: Complaint filed September 2, 2020; case proceeding to the battle over federal vs. state court jurisdiction.
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. 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). The motion to remand is fully briefed as of Feb. 26, 2021. A decision on remand is pending.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/city-of-hoboken-v-exxon-mobil-corp/
New York
City of New York v. ExxonMobil et al.
Current Status: Case filed on April 22, 2021.
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 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.
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
City of New York v. BP et al.
Current Status: Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the City's appeal with a ruling on April 1, 2021.
Background: New York City filed a lawsuit against the five largest oil companies (same five defendants in Oakland/San Francisco suits) in January 2018 over climate impacts and associated costs to the city. The lawsuit alleged claims of nuisance and trespass and demanded monetary damages as relief. The city originally filed the case in federal court. District Judge John Keenan decided in favor of defendants and dismissed the case in July 2018. The city appealed this ruling, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing in November 2019. After a long delay, the 2nd Circuit ultimately ruled in April 2021 to reject the appeal, upholding the district court's finding that the case presented federal issues that cannot be resolved by courts.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/city-new-york-v-bp-plc/
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 will be sent back to the First Circuit Court of Appeals for further consideration.
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 now returns to the First Circuit to consider the defendants' other arguments for federal jurisdiction.
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: Complaint filed September 9, 2020; 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.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/city-of-charleston-v-brabham-oil-co/
Washington
King County v. BP et al.
Current Status: Case had been stayed pending Ninth Circuit ruling on Oakland/San Francisco appeal; stay continued pending resolution of the earliest of either 1) defendants' petition to the Supreme Court in the Oakland/SF case; or 2) the Supreme Court decision in cases involving personal jurisdiction issues.
Background: Washington’s King County, which includes the city of Seattle, filed a lawsuit against five major oil companies (same defendants in Oakland/San Francisco suits) in May 2018, alleging public nuisance and trespass for climate-related damages and impacts incurred by the county. The county demanded an order requiring the companies fund a climate change adaptation program for the county, as well as requiring them to pay for costs the county has already incurred relating to climate change.
King County filed its case in Washington Superior Court, and defendants moved it to federal court (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington). Following an amended complaint filed by the county, defendants filed motions to dismiss on August 31, 2018. In September 2018, King County filed a motion to stay its case pending the outcome of the appeal by Oakland and San Francisco. The federal district court granted the stay in October 2018.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/king-county-v-bp-plc/
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
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/
Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell
Current Status: Historic verdict issued by The Hague District Court on May 26, 2021 ordering Shell to slash CO2 emissions 45% net by 2030 (relative to 2019 levels), the first time a court anywhere in the world has ordered a polluting corporation to reduce emissions to comply with the Paris Climate Agreement and human rights law. Shell plans to appeal the ruling.
Background: Case building on the historic Urgenda climate case holding the Dutch government accountable. This case targets Shell, a Dutch oil giant and one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the world. Plaintiffs are Dutch environmental groups along with over 17000 Dutch citizens. The lawsuit alleges Shell’s business activities are incompatible with the Paris Agreement and violate human rights protected under Netherlands and European law. Plaintiffs request a court order for Shell to reduce its carbon emissions to zero by 2050 in alignment with Paris Agreement goals.
The case was filed in the Hague Court of Appeals on April 5, 2019. According to an update from Friends of the Earth International, the Dutch court has announced four public sessions in December 2020. Hearings took place on December 1, 3, 15, and 17. A landmark decision following the Dec. 2020 hearings was delivered on May 26, 2021 holding Shell accountable for its insufficient climate action and polluting business operations. The court ordered Shell to reduce carbon emissions not only from the company's own operations but also from its customers consuming its fossil fuel products, at a level of 45% by 2030 in compliance with the objectives of the Paris Agreement. It is the first time a court has determined that corporations must respect the international climate accord and should be held accountable for protecting human rights in the face of the climate emergency. The ruling, like the historic Urgenda verdict in the Netherlands against the Dutch government, represents a breakthrough in climate litigation and is likely to inspire other climate lawsuits targeting polluting corporations.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/milieudefensie-et-al-v-royal-dutch-shell-plc/
https://www.foei.org/press_releases/shell-climate-case-public-showdown
