In City of San Mateo, et al v. Chevron Corporation, et al, six California jurisdictions sued 13 energy company defendants for global warming-related claims.
The question in this round was whether the federal district court was wrong in remanding the suit to state court after it had been removed to federal court by the defendants. The district court was correct. That court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under any of the grounds asserted by the defendants.
The court received amicus curiae briefs from many different pro- and anti-fossil fuel organizations and jurisdictions. This post is not a report on the nuances of the removal and remand process, but rather to describe the nature of the lawsuit, which is similar to others against energy companies.
The allegations are that the following actions of the energy companies “ … is a substantial factor in causing the increase in global mean temperature and consequent increase in global mean sea surface height.”:
The plaintiffs allege that they ”have already incurred and will foreseeably continue to incur, injuries and damages because of sea level rise caused by [the energy companies’] conduct.” Among other examples of damage, they cite:
The causes of action (all based on California state law):
The energy companies removed because the claims:
All were unsuccessful. As the courts are fond of saying, “The plaintiff is master of his pleadings.”
This round is over; expect the case to be aggressively contested for years to come.
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
© Gray Reed | Attorney Advertising
This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.
Copyright © JD Supra, LLC