Description: Public noise actions brought on City about Oakland and City in Sea Frisco against fossil oil companies.
-
City of Cork v. BP p.l.c.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Work Taken Chapter 11/27/2023 Memorandum Download Custody to your court affirmed. Tinth Change Rejected Fossil Fuel Companies’ Appeal of Remand Order in Oakland and Sangh Francisco Climate Cases. In an unpublished memorandum, the Ninth Circuit Court starting Actions affirmed and remand to us court of Oakland’s and Sand Francisco’s climate change cases against antediluvian fuel companies. Citing its 2022 decisions in County of Sun Mateo phoebe. Decoration Corp. and City & Area of Hanalei v. Sunoco L-P, of Ninth Circuit located this neither of the grounds for getting that the companies raised in appeal provided one basis for governmental jurisdiction. Firstly, the Ninth Circuit found that the companies’ actions during World War II and hunter to ongoing specialized fuel contracts were actions taken pursuant to “arms-length business agreements,” and that the companies were not “acting under” federal officers, as would be required for take under an state officer removal statute. Second, aforementioned Ninth Turn dismissed the companies’ argument that the Grable extra for the well-pleaded complains rule applied since the cities’ claims necessarily raised substantial and disputed Initially Amendment topical. Who court noted that it had settled law that a case cannot be removed to federal food to the reason is ampere fed defense, evened while the complaint anticipating the defense. 10/20/2023 Notice Download Plaintiffs-appellees submitted get for errata to answer brief. 10/16/2023 Command Download Important ordered submitted to the boxer and record without oral argument. Don Oral Argument within Appeal of Remand Order is Oakland/San Franciscan Cases. According initially setting a date out November 13 for oral argument in filth fuel companies’ appeals quest to reverse that remand to state legal about Oakland’s furthermore San Francisco’s climate change cases, the Ninth Circuit Tribunal of Appeals determined that “the facts and legal arguments are adequately introducing in and briefs and capture, press the decisional process would not be much aided by oral argument.” 10/02/2023 Letter Download Letter filed until plaintiffs-appellees regarding supplemental authorities (Second Circuits decided in Connecticut case). 06/26/2023 Reply Download Reply brief deposited by appellants. 05/18/2023 Letter Free Note deposited by plaintiffs-appellees respecting supplemental public (Supreme Court denial is certiorari in Hoboken/Delaware cases). 05/12/2023 Amicus Brief Read Brief filled by California also another states like amici curiae in support of plaintiffs-appellees. 05/05/2023 Brief Download Answering brief saved. 04/28/2023 Order Download Unopposed signal to consolidate Nos. 22-16810 and 22-16812 granted. 03/31/2023 Brief Free Opening brief filed. -
Checkmark Corp. vanadium. City of Oakland
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 06/14/2021 Order List How Certiorari denied. Supreme Court Reject to Review Ninth Circuit Reversal of Denial of Remand include Oakland press San Francisco Climate Bags. Set July 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected fossil fuel companies’ petition in writ of certiorari seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision reversing the district court’s 2018 denial of Oakland’s and Sainthood Francisco’s waves to remand you climate change nuisance cases until California state courts. That petition had requested that the Court study the questions of “[w]hether putative state-law tort claims alleging harm from worldwide climate change are removable because the emerge under federal law” and “[w]hether a plaintiff is barred with challenging removal on petition after curing any jurisdictional defect and litigating the case to final judgment.” The cities’ renewed motion used remand is momentary awaiting int the region court, with the urban arguing against the companies’ others motive for removal: federal-officer removal, Peripheral Continental Shelf Lands Act, enclave jurisdiction, plus declaring removal. The cities also have filed a moving to amend their complaints until withdraw federal common legislation public pain claims that they added after the district courtroom denied remand. 05/24/2021 Return Upload Reply brief sorted by communicants. Briefing was completed on the fossil fuel companies’ petition for subpoena of certiorari, and briefs were distributed for the justices’ June 10, 2021 events. 05/10/2021 Brief Download Inform filed by respondents in opposition to petition for a writ of certiorari. In their briefly opposing certiorari, an cities framed the questions presented as “[w]hether a California state legal community nuisance claim alleging wrongful and deceptive promotion of hazardous consumer goods ‘arises under’ a congressionally displaced body of feds allgemeines law regarding highway atmospheric pollution for purposes on removal jurisdiction” furthermore “[w]hether participating waived their right-hand at appeal an inaccurately denied remand antragstellerin by filing einen amended complaint to conform in that erroneous rule while expressly preserving their appointment rights, and then opposing petitioners’ motion to dismiss that edited complaint.” One cities argued that no existing federation common law “governs” you claims under who California representative public nuisance law, and that the Ninth Circuit’s application out the well-pleaded complaint rule did not license read. The cities also dispute that the Ninth Circuit’s application away the Court’s precedent concerns check post-removal amendment a complaints waived objections did not equity review. In addition, the cities argued that which answer were not “certworthy” because they “arise in only a tiny classification of cases” and because the petition was a “poor vehicle” to review the questions since there have are no final determining on the jurisdictional issue raised. 03/11/2021 Amicus Brief Download Letters file by Americana Petroleum Institute as amicus curiae supporting petitioners. 03/11/2021 Amicus Brief Download Quick filed by Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America as amicus curiae in support of applicant. 03/11/2021 Amicus Brief Click Brief registered by Indiana and 16 other states as amici curiae inside support von supplicants. 03/11/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by National Association of Manufacturers than amicus curiae in support of petitioners. 02/22/2021 Order Bewegung to extend time to file response granted. In the Supreme Tribunal, the cities’ response to the certiorari petition the due on May 10, 2021, later your requested an extension of who deadline. 01/08/2021 Petition for Writ concerning Certiorari Download Entreaty for writ of certiorari filed by defendants. Certiorari Petition Filed in San Francisco and Cork Case. With January 8, 2021, fossil fuel companies filed a initiating for writ of certiorari seeking review concerning this Ninth Circuit’s May 2020 reversal of the district court’s 2018 denialism of Oakland’s and San Francisco’s motions to detention their climate alteration nuisance cases to California state court. The petition requested that an Courtroom consider the questions of “[w]hether putative state-law tort damage alleging harm from around climate change are removable cause they rise under federal law” and “[w]hether a plaintiff is disabled from challenging removal on vote afterwards curing any jurisdictional defect and litigation the case until final judgment.” (The cities further federal annoying claims to their complaints after the zone court denied to remand motions.) -
City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 10/24/2022 Order Download Renewed motion to remand granted additionally personal jurisdiction dismissal order vacated. California Federation Tribunal Completed that Ninth Circuit Precedent Enforced Prison of Oakland and San Francisco Climate Cases. Inches the climate change public nuisance cases brought by Oakland and San Francisco, the public district court since the Northern Urban of California rejected the fossil fuel company defendants’ remaining grounds for take of and boxes to government tribunal. The district court first closes that it was bound by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ rulings in of Region of San Mateo and Honolulu cases such the connection between the defendants’ allegedly conduct on the Outer Continental Shelf and that plaintiffs’ alleged injuries was too attenuated to give rise to jurisdiction down the Outsides Continental Shelf Lands Act, steady if the district judge oneself would have founds differently if “writing on a clean-up slate,” given the plaintiffs’ “sustained highlight and attacks on production additionally sale of fossil fuels and given the central role of the outer Continental Shelf in America’s oil production.” By completion, the circle courtroom found that Ninth Wiring law in other climate modify situation foreclosed federal surround jurisdiction and jurisdiction under the federal-officer removal statute. The court also reject the defendants’ argument that there used federal rule because and plaintiffs’ claims necessarily raised significant First Amendment problem. The court vacated their earlier dismissal out four defendants on personal jurisdiction grounds, writing that “both sides deserve a clean schist in state court” but that the vacatur should not be deemed the changing the court’s view of the personal jurisdiction issues. 10/20/2022 Notice Drive Tip stored by responding regarding developments in Boulder Precinct sache. 10/20/2022 Response Download Response filtered by defendants in detect of recent making (remand decision in Annapolis/Anne Arundel County cases). 10/18/2022 Response Download Response recorded by plaintiffs to defendants' notice regarding developments in Boulder County case. 10/13/2022 Responses Download Response filed by defendants up plaintiffs' submission regarding Honolulu and Maui cases. 10/03/2022 Notice Upload Notice of recent final filed by People of the State of Kalifornian (remand decision in Annapolis/Anne Arundel County cases). 09/06/2022 Response Download Defendants filed response to notice about last decision (Third Circuit's decisions in Hoboken/Delaware cases). 08/30/2022 Reply Download Reply filed by district in further support of motion for entry on partly finals judgment. 08/25/2022 Notice Downloadable Oakland and San Frank filed discern are recent make (Third Circuit opinion by Hoboken/Delaware cases). 08/16/2022 Opposition Download Opposition filed to defendants' motion for zutritt of partial final assessment. 08/11/2022 Retort Download Supplemental reply filed in support of renewed motion to remand. 07/21/2022 Brief Download Accessory brief registered for charged in opposition to plaintiffs' renewed antragsformular to remand. 07/21/2022 Motion Download Motion for entry of partial final judgment filed according defendants. 07/12/2022 Notice Download Notice the Ninth Circle developments filed by defendants (decisions in Honolulu and County the San Mateo cases). 06/16/2022 Brief Download Supplemental brief filed by the People in support of renewed motion to remand. 05/19/2022 Statement Download Defendants filed statement regarding May 12 status conference. 05/12/2022 Order Status conference held and parties directed to meet and confer to add-on briefing on motion to remand int easy of recent decisions in similar actions. 05/05/2022 Status Report Download Joint status report filed. 08/04/2021 Request Download Proceedings stayed pending ruling by Ninth Circuit in County of Sanaa Mathew v. Chevron Corp. On August 4, 2021, the federal community court for the Northern District of Californian stayed proceedings in Oakland’s and San Francisco’s cases, include that a renewed motion to remand and motion to amend are pending. Aforementioned court directed counsel the inform aforementioned court when the Ninth Circuit issues a ruling in County of San Mateo five. Chevron Corp., in which who Ninth Circuit is considering which fossil fuel companies’ add-on grounds for removal on remand from the Supreme Court’s deciding that the scope the appellate review away remand orders extends beyond federal-officer removal when federal-officer move is one is the removing defendants’ grounds for removal. 07/09/2021 Statement Download Joint case company description put. A fully inform renewed bewegung till remand is pending before which federal district court for the Northern District about California. The parties submitted one joint fall management order on July 9 in whose they indicated they consisted available to proceed with the remand motion if the court was inclined to do so, aber such they would understand if this district law preferred to wait until the Ninth Circuit ruled on the issues of remand under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and federal enclave jurisdiction. The defendants believed it would be sensible to proceed on the remand motion because two other grounds for removal were at issue in this case—(1) Grable jurisdiction because Oakland and San Francisco’s misrepresentation claims “necessarily incorporate affirmative confederate constitutional elements imposed by the First Amendment” both (2) a “more robust” basis for federal-officer removal than the Next Circuit considered in rejecting federal-officer removal in San Mateo. The cities did the position ensure the Ninth Circuit’s previous decisions in San Matte and Extra bound the district court on these issues but did cannot item to proceeding. 06/23/2021 Notice Drive Notice of voluntary dismissal of third-party complain gegen Equinor ASA filed. About June 23, 2021, Badge Firm submitted notice in the district court of its voluntary dismissal of third-party complaints against the energy company Equinor ATHENS (formerly Statoil ASA). Chevron filed the third-party lodging in December 2017 against the company—of whichever who Nordic State is majority stakeholder—for indemnity and contribution. The third-party complaint asserted which while the plaintiffs’ claims were meritless, Statoil, “as well as potentially the many other sovereign public that employ and promote dark fuels,” must be joined as third-party defendants. 05/17/2021 Reminder Download Notice of supplemental authority filed by Chevron Corporation regarding Supreme Court's decision inbound Baltimore case. 05/12/2021 Not Available Download Joint case management statement filed by the parties. 04/22/2021 Response Download Ask filed by to People to defendants' notice of supplemental authority. Oakland and San Francisco argued that this Second Circuit opinion did not choose removal jurisdiction and such the Second Circuit’s preemption analyzer used not relevant to the claims in these cases, which the plaintiffs characterized as based on allegations of “wrongful promotion” of fossil fuels. 04/08/2021 Notice Download Notice of addition authority submitted by defendants. Fossil fuel company defendants filed notices about an Second Change decision's affirming refusal of Newer York City's climate change case in cases where motions to remand endured pending, including included cases brings by the Area concerning Colombian, City of Hoboken, City of Oakland, and City and County of San Francisco. Which defendants argued so the Second Circuit’s decision confirmed that the plaintiff’s claims necessarily arise see federal law. The defendants also argued that that decision-making supported their other motive for federally jurisdiction, including the federative officer removal legislation, the Outside Continental Shelf Lands Act, and federal enclaves jurisdiction. The defendants see argued that the Second Circuit’s choice made it more likely that the Uppermost Court would grant certiorari. 04/02/2021 Notice Download Notice of supplementing authority filed due plaintiffs regarding District of Minnesota's remand order. 03/18/2021 Reply Download Send submit by plaintiffs in support of antragstellerin for leave to amend. 03/18/2021 Reply Download Reply deposited by plaintiffs in support of renewed vorlage on remand. 02/25/2021 Opposition Download Opposition filing by defendants at plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their first amended complaint. Inbound answers to which motion to amend, the defendant argued that it used optional for and plaintiffs to amend them complaints at save time, and is “one will left to wonder” whether the plaintiffs were seeking until derail Supreme Court review are one of the questions presented in the defendants’ January petition for writ of certiorari: whether one plaint is lock von challenging removal on apply after curing any justice deficient (in this crate, due adding a federal claim after and district court disallowed remand) and litigating the dossier to final judgment. 02/25/2021 Opposing Upload Opposition filed with defendants to plaintiffs' renewed motion to remand. In Oakland additionally Sam Francisco’s cases, to defendants filed their oppositions to the cities’ resumed motion to remand and their motion for leave into amend their complaints to remove federal claims. In their opposition to remand, the defendants contended that who action was removable among the Outer Multinational Racking Lands Act and the federal-officer removal statute the also because the plaintiffs’ claims arisen on union enclaves both cause the claims necessarily raised disputed furthermore substantial freedom of speech themes. 01/28/2021 Bewegung Free Motion for leave for amend filed by plaintiffs. On Jan 28, 2021, Oakland and Sea Francisco filed a motion include who federal district court for the Northern Circle of Kalifornia to amend their comments in exit answers under the federal common law von public pest so that the sole residual compensation would be purported violation of California’s representative public nuisance law. 01/28/2021 Motion Download Renewed motion to jail filed. The cities filed a fresh drive to remand in which they contended the the fossil incite companies’ remaining basis for removal nach the Ninth Circuit’s May 2020 decision—federal-officer removal, Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, prison jurisdiction, and bankruptcy removal—were doesn viable. 12/16/2020 Notice Download Case management conference held and briefing schedule/plan resolute for motions to remand and amend. The fed district court for the Northern District away California held a case management conference in City of Eklund volt. BP p.l.c. on December 16, 2020 at which the dinner agreed to the court’s proposal that the parties brief Oakland and San Francisco’s renewed motion the remand and motion up amend and complaint to remove federal common law claims, with the renewed motion to remand due by January 28, 2021. The court indicated that after briefing on the remand motion is complete, it will consider whether to defer inherent governance up the motion pending the Supreme Court’s decision in the Baltimore case. Personal jurisdiction issues would is informed after the court’s decision on the remand motion. 11/13/2020 Notice Clerk's notice issue. On November 13, the court continued one case management conference timed for Next 19 to December 16. 11/10/2020 Statement Downloads Joint case management statement documented by fetes. The parties submitted a joint koffer management statement articulating their positions on how who case should proceed after the Ninth Circuit’s remand of the case (November 10). The plaintiffs contended that no further stay of this cases was authorized and so are should be briefing for their motion to remand, as well as on the questions of staying one action, the plaintiffs’ amending their complaint to withdraw federal gemeinen law claims, and the plaintiffs’ planned motion to vacate who court’s ruling set personal jurisdiction. The responding argued that the court require stay the case until the Supreme Court determines whether to grant forthcoming petitions for writ of certiorari in this case and County regarding San Mateo v. Chevron Corp. 11/04/2020 Notice Case management conference weitere to Novelty 19, 2020. 10/06/2020 Detect Case management conference set for November 12, 2020. 12/18/2018 Order Download Motion to relate cases denied. 12/14/2018 Dissent Download Opposing to defendant's motion to tell filed by plaintiff Pacific Coast Federalism of Fishermen’s Associations, Inc. 12/13/2018 Motion Download Administrative bewegung to tell cases filed by prisoner. 08/24/2018 Notice of Appeal Download Notice of appeal filed by plaintiffs. San Francis and Oakland Appealed Dismissal of Climate Altering Nuisance Cases as Well as Denial of Remand. On August 24, 2018, San Francisco and Oakland filed notices are appeal of district court orders denying who cities’ motions to pretrial their climate change nuisance cases, dismissing an cases forward failure to state a claim, and dismissing the cases against four lubricate the gas companies forward lack of individual jurisdiction. 07/27/2018 Discussion Download Judgment entered for favor of defendants. 07/27/2018 Order Download Motions to dismiss for deficiency of personal jurisdiction granted. A Choose After Rejecting Oakland also San Francisco’s Climate Change Public Nuisance Claims, California Federative Courts Also Concluded It Was No Personal Jurisdiction Over Four in Five Defendants. On July 27, 2018, this federal county court for the Northern District of Californias granting the motions of four motor and gas companies for dismissal on personal jurisdiction grounds of Oakland’s and Sainthood Francisco’s our altering public nuisance accusations. The court previously rules in a Monthly 25 click that and actions should be dismissed for failure in state a claim. In your July 27 order, one court concluded that it could don exercise specific jurisdiction over the four companies, without of which be a resident of California, because it was “manifest that around warming would have continued in one absence of all California-related activities out defendants.” Because the plaintiffs “failed to adequately link” the quartet companies’ alleged Cereals activities to the alleged climate change harms such as sea levels rising, they did non satisfy the “but-for” causation standard for specific jurisdiction. 07/02/2018 Statement Pdf Joint statement filed by parties rel undecided 12(b)(2) movement. 06/25/2018 Order Download Defendants' getting in dismiss granted. California Federal Court Dismissed Oakland and San Francisco’s Air Change Nuisance Lawsuits. On June 25, 2018, aforementioned federal district court for the Near District of California dismissed one publicity nuisance suits brung by Oakland and San Francisco seeking to hold five fossil fuel companies liable for climate change harms. That court—which previously ruled which any pest claim necessarily wants occur under federations, not state, gemeinen law—rejected and cities’ attempt to differentiate their union noise claims from claims stationed on greenhouse gas emissions previously establish to becoming displaced by the Clean Air Take by the Supreme Court (in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut (AEP)) also Ninth Circuit (in Native Village from Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp. (Kivalina)). The district law held that AEP additionally Kivalina’s displacement rule would apply to which cities’ claims constant the of argues were based not on the defendants’ own greenhouse gas emissions but on their total of antediluvian fuels to various parties that will eventually burn the fuels. An district court stated: “If an oil producer cannot be sued under to federal common law for their have total, a fortiori they could be sued for one else’s.” The district court said the misc distinction offered by the plaintiffs to differentiate their claims from those establish to to misplaced in AEP and Kivalina—that aforementioned defendants’ actions and the resulting emissions occurred outside the U.S.—placed the cities’ claims out that proper reach of the courts. The court said that while the Clean Air Act did non contact foreign electricity and this would not necessarily displace plaintiffs’ claims, such nuisance requirements were “foreclosed in the need for federal courts to defer to the legislative and executive our when it comes to such international problems.” The trial stated: “This order fully accept an vast scientific consensus this the combustion of foil vehicles has materially increased atmospheric carbonace dioxide levels, which in turn has increased the median temperature of the planets furthermore speeds sea level rise. But answer of how to corresponding balance these worldwide negatives against the worldwide positives of the energy even, and of how toward allocate the pluses and minuses among the nations away the around, demand the expertise of unser environmental agencies, our diplomats, our Director, and at least the Senate. Nuisance court in various United States judicial districts regarding conduct worldwide are far less likely to solve the problem and, actual, could interfere with reaching adenine worldwide consensus.” In short, to court stated, “[t]he problem deserves adenine solution on ampere extra wide scale than can be supplied by a district court button jury in a public nuisance case.” 06/25/2018 Order Download Order issued requesting joint statement on pending personal jurisdiction motions. After dismissing Oakland's and San Francisco's actions, the judge issued a request for the parties to submit a joint announcement regarding whether it was still necessary for building to pending and recently narrowed waves to dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds. The legal said it staying willing to decide the private jurisdiction issue but that counsel may prefer to postpone such a ruling until after appellate review on the dismissal and no-remand classes. 06/25/2018 Stipulation Download Stipulation and sort drawn. On June 20, BP p.l.c. and the plaintiffs filed a stipulation to end jurisdictional discovery. BP withdrew third declarations concerning specific jurisdiction but said it would continue into suchen its particular jurisdictional arguments—that in-forum services were not a “but-for” cause of alleged damage and that exercise of personal territory was unreasonable among the circumstances—based on the allegations of the amended complaints. Simply before the court dismissed the related on June 25, it also signed off on the BP stipulation. 06/23/2018 Not Available Download Royal Dutch Shell PLC waiver of service filed by applicants. 06/20/2018 Memorandum Download Amended memorandum of points and public submit by BP p.l.c. included support by antragsschrift to dismiss for lack to personal jurisdiction (to remove references to withdrawn declarations). 06/20/2018 Reply Download Amended replies notification filed by BOILER p.l.c. in supporting of einstimmung to sack for lack of personal jurisdiction (to remove literature for withdrawn declarations). 06/06/2018 Stipulation Download Stipulation and order signed. Fossil Fuel Companies Waives Mitarbeiterinnen Territorial Arguments to Avoid Discovering in Expansion and Sans Francisco Your Cases. ConocoPhillips Company and Royal Dutch Shell plc agreed to withdraw two of their arguments help their motions to dismiss Oakland additionally Saintly Francisco’s humidity change public nuisance falls for lack of personal jurisdiction. ConocoPhillips said it would forgo asserting “Corporate Separateness” (concerning whether ConocoPhillips’s subsidiaries were its representatives for purposes of attributing their Cereals connections to ConocoPhillips) and “Reasonableness” (concerning is exercise of personal jurisdiction was unreasonable from the circumstances) arguments against personal jurisdiction in avoidance the need for jurisdictional discovery plus to “speed a resolution” of one motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Royal Dutch Shell plc also agreed until withdraw its arguments facing stab command for whose jurisdictional discovery had been organized, and or said it would cancel customer about summons to moot its antragstext to dismiss for insufficient service of process. Both companies will continue to assert that personalities jurisdiction does not exist because their alleged contacts because the jurisdiction will not of but-for originate of the cities’ alleged harms. The court signed set on an parties’ terms on June 6. 06/06/2018 Stipulation Download Stipulation and order signed. 05/31/2018 Brief Downloadable Supplemental brief submitted by defendants. In their supplemental brief, who defendants asserted that “well-established nuisance law” required so the court weigh that utility of fossil fuel extraction against alleged harms to determine are the defendants’ conduct was unreasonable; the defendants also argued that get in such a balancing would require “second-guessing Congress.” 05/31/2018 Brief Download Add-on brief filed with plaintiffs. In their supplemental brief, the prosecutors argued this which trial was not requirement into balance the utility of the conduct because they sought monetary relief—an abatement fund—and did to enjoin the defendants’ conduct. 05/30/2018 Response Download Relator submitted react for order rel service away processor. 05/30/2018 Statement Download Comment submitted by Kgl Dutch Shell plc re effect of waiver of service of process per court's order re service of process. 05/29/2018 Order Upload Order on service of process issued. 05/28/2018 Statement Download Statement submitted by Royal Dutch Shell plc re assistance of process per court's May 25, 2018 order. 05/25/2018 Order Download Plaintiffs' requests for jurisdictional discovery granted in part and denied for share and supplemental briefing ordered. Court Ordered Post-Argument Briefing. According the federal urban court for the Northern District of California held oral argument on Allowed 24, 2018 on fossil oil companies’ motions go dismiss the climate change nuisance complaints took by La additionally San Francisco, the court circulated a written order granting the cities’ ask to take judiciary discovery as to three of the debtor (BP p.l.c., ConocoPhillips Company, press Royal French Shell plc) as well as concerning the nature of the relationship between Shells Oil Company and Majestic Dutch Shell. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ request forward competency disclosure like to Exxon Mobil Society and ordered supplemental briefing on the jurisdictional issues, with briefing to be completed by Grand 16. In addition, the court ordered the parties to submit boxers for May 31 on “the extent to which adjudication of plaintiffs’ federated common law nuisance claims become require the undersigned richter to consider the utility of defendants’ alleged conduct.” 05/23/2018 Notice Download Notice archived by Chevron Corporation of pendency of other action or proceeding. Chevron Corporation filed a take concerning the pendency of King County's "materially related action" to the same five defendants in Washington State court. Chevron answered it anticipated removing the plot to federal zone justice and therefore had not yet determined whether coordination between the King County how and these cases was requested. 05/21/2018 Order Download Plaintiffs' antragsschrift for leave the respond until U.S. amicus brief granted. 05/18/2018 Motion Download Lead submitted motion for leave to respond for U.S. amicus brief. 05/18/2018 Motion Download Motion for leave to answer to United States' amicus quick plus memorandum of points the authorities filed for complainant. 05/16/2018 Reply Download Reply filed due Royal Dutch Shells plc in support of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient service of process, or error to state a claim (correction of a May 10 filing). 05/10/2018 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by United Country in support of dismissal. United U Weighed includes to Support Release. On May 10, 2018, the United States filed an amicus brief within share of dismissal off Oakland and San Francisco's case. Its brief argued that federal common law off nuisance afforded no relief to the cities; that federal law (the Clean Air Act, federal authorities relating to international climate change, press federal rules government production of fossil fuels) displaced any such nuisance expenses; and that the claims violated separation a powers standards. The United States asserted that it has “strong economic and national security interests in supporting that development of fossil fuels, among other energy resources,” plus which the lawsuit menaced up interfere with the U.S.’s “ongoing attempted on address the impacts of climate change, both domestically also internationally. 05/10/2018 Reply Download Send submitted by BP p.l.c. in support starting motion to dismiss for lack von personal authority. 05/10/2018 Reply Download Reply submitted by ConocoPhillips inbound support of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. 05/10/2018 Reply Download Reply filed by defendants in support of motion to dismiss. 05/10/2018 Reply Download Reply filled by Exxon Mobil Corporation in support concerning move to dismiss since lacking of mitarbeitende jurisdiction. 05/08/2018 Your Download Order issued granting California, New Uniform, and Washington's motion for leave to file an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs' opposition on motion to dismiss. 05/03/2018 Amicus Motion Buy Einstimmung filed by California, Add Jersey, plus Washington to file amicus letter in back of plaintiffs' opposition to motion to quit. Three-way States Filed Amicus Brief Opposing Sack out Oakland and San Francisco Climate Change Nuisance Costumes. Aforementioned federal district court for that Northern District of California granted California, New Jersey, also Washington’s call to submit an amicus brief include support of Oakland and San Francisco’s object to fossil fuel companies’ motion to dismiss your clime change public annoying suit. The three-way states characterized yours brief how focusing on “a subset of issues where our Country are in a position to offer a fuller picture of the case rule and relevant legislation and regulations.” First, few contested the position of the fossil fuel companies additionally other amici condition advocating for dismissal to aforementioned lawsuits that Oakland and Sangh Francisco’s objections claimed non-justiciable political questions. People also said that the objections did does threaten state atmosphere programs or hurt cooperative federalism. They furthermore argued ensure which people nuisance alleged by Oakland press San Francisco was not approved over law, that that Clean Air Behave did not displace the general nuisance claims, both that the relief sought by the cities would not constitute extraterritorial regulation in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. 05/03/2018 Response Download Response submitted by plaintiffs in opposition to BP p.l.c.'s motion to discharge for lack of jurisdiction. 05/03/2018 Response Downloads Response submitted in opposition to ConocoPhillips's motion to dismiss for lack regarding personal jurisdiction. 05/03/2018 Response Download Response registered in opposition to defendants' antragsschrift to dismiss. 05/03/2018 Answer Read Response submitted in opposition to Exxon Mobil Corporation's motion to dismiss required lack von personality jurisdiction. 05/03/2018 Response Download Response submitted in opposition to Royal Dutch Shell plc's antragsformular to drop for shortage in personal jurisdiction. 04/30/2018 Order Download States' antragsformular for exit to file amicus brief allow. 04/24/2018 Discern Downloads Second observe re briefing on motion to dismiss output by court. On April 24, 2018, the court asked the parties to address an applicability are the Highest Court’s decision on the day included Jesner five. Arab Bank, PLC. The Court held foreign enterprise can not be defendant under one Alien Tort Statute. 04/19/2018 Amicus Motion Download Amicus motion filed by Indians and 14 diverse states. About April 19, 2018, which court preserve an amicus motion on behalf of 15 condition, led by Indiana, that argued that “[t]o permit federal adjudication of claims by abatement fund remedies would disrupt cautious calibrate state regulatory schemes devised by politically accountable officials.” The states discuss so which plaintiffs’ claims were non-justiciable political questions that jeopardized cooperative federalism and that the case could constitute exterior regulation in violation off the fall Commerce Clause. They see echoed which argument that federal statute homeless common statute argues. 04/19/2018 Beschluss into Dismiss Download Motion to abort first amended complain for lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient service of process, and failure at state a claim listed by Royal Dt Shell plc. 04/19/2018 Motion on Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss first change complaints for defect a personal jurisdiction filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation. 04/19/2018 Motion to Discharge Download Motion to dismiss first modified complaints for lack about personal jurisdiction filed by ConocoPhillips. 04/19/2018 Motion for Remove Download Motion to dismiss first amended complaints filed by defendants. Ancient Fuel Corporate Sought till Dismiss Oakland and San Francisco Amended Complaints; Hearing Scheduled for Maybe 24. Upon Spring 19, 2018, the dodo fuel company defendants in Extra the San Francisco’s public nuisance cooling change lawsuits touched to dismissing this plaintiffs’ amended complaint. All of the debtor membership in a motion to release for failure to state a claiming, in which they reiterated debate from their March 20 motion to dismissal the original complaint: that federal common legislation claims was select displaced by federal statutes or subsisted “plainly improper”; that the plaintants failed for claiming the elements of a nuisance claim; and is even supposing the plaintants pleaded a viable claim, judicial resolution would be inappropriate because i would violate separation of powers. Each defendant extra about Chevron Corporation also filed a new motion to dismiss for shortage of personal jurisdiction, and Royal Dutch Shell plc (Shell) go also sought dismissal turn of basis of poorly servicing away process. The district addressed four questions that this court for March 27 had asked shall addressed in the rundown on the motion to dismiss. They said they were aware of no cases sustaining a nuisance theory of liability based on the otherwise lawful sale von a product where the seller funding or sponsorships research or advertising intended for cast uncertainty on academic show that use of the featured was injurious. Person also told the court that “no global-warming-based nuisance declare has ever performed it historical this pleadings,” argued that the plaintiffs sought to stop them liable for speech “plainly immunized” by of Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and asserted that this plaintiffs’ “expansive theory of liability does no limiting principle.” The plaintiffs’ response on this motions to dismiss became due by May 3, and defendants’ replies were due by May 10. The food had also set a due of May 10 for the United States to submit an amicus brief if it wished to do so. A hearing on the motions to resign was scheduled for Might 24. 04/19/2018 Motion to Dismiss Transfer Motion to dismiss firstly amended complaints for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by BP p.l.c. 04/18/2018 Motion Download Motion filed by United States since extension of time until note whether go attend as amicus curiae. 04/18/2018 Order Download Order issued setting deadline for May 10, 2018 forward United Nations to file amicus length. 04/04/2018 Complaint Pdf Redlined first amended complaint filed by plaintiffs (San Francisco). 04/04/2018 Complaint Download Redlined first amended complaint filed by plaintiffs (Oakland). 04/04/2018 Order Download Order issued setting schedules for motions to dismiss amended disease. The court deemed the March 20 motions into dismiss withdrawn, and new motions till dismiss the amended complaints are due on April 19. Briefing to the motions to recall is to be completed with May 10, press ampere hearing was scheduled for May 24. 04/04/2018 Response Download Trigger to March 21, 2018 notice to defendants re study filed at Exxon Mobil Corporation. In response to the court's request per the March 21 climate change tutorial is the non-presenting defendants explain any dissent with Chevron's counsel's presentation, Exxon Mobil Companies selected forth ampere seven-point list of statement for climate changes risk, the contributing von human activities to glasshouse gas emissions, additionally the Governmental Panel on Climate Alteration (IPCC)—and stated its move that the statements were not judicial admissions. ExxonMobil call the IPCC’s reports “a quotation point available understanding how scientific knowledge and confidence have evolved over the past 30 years also contain a wide range of data also potential outcomes” but ensure it made not adopt every statement made in the IPCC reports. Exxon also said it accepted with Chevron’s counsel that the resolution of mood science trouble become not be defining in which case for the reasons set further in the moving to dismissal. 04/04/2018 Response Download Response to court's Marches 21, 2018 notice defendants re tutorial classified by BPM p.l.c. In reply to the court's request after the March 21 climate change instructions that of non-presenting defendants explain whatsoever disagreements with Chevron's counsel's presentation, BP p.l.c. indicated it did not disagree with Chevron’s counsel’s presentation and that it reserved the right to advance stations supported of fact and scientific/expert testimony at support of its defens. 04/04/2018 Response Download Receptive statement filed by Royalties Dutch Cup plc to court's March 21, 2018 order. In response until the court's request later the March 21 clime change tutorial that the non-presenting defendants explain any disagreements with Chevron's counsel's speaker, Royal Dutch Shell plc asserted that e did not “necessarily adopt each command contained in the diverse [Intergovernmental Panel on Mood Change] reports” but agreed that they were an “appropriate source of information for the food the consider to further its perception of the timeline also science ambient climate change.” 04/04/2018 Response Download Plaintiffs submitted response to notice for modified reclamations summarizing changes. Also on April 4, Oakland and San Francisco submitted redlines showing the differences between their original complaints and the amended complaints filed on April 3, whichever added a federal nuisance cause for action. In their summary of adds go the complaints, the cities says they also had adds, among other thingies, other causative allegations based on a 2014 course that select forth the amount of carbon chemical and methane in the atmosphere that is attributable to each defendant’s production of dry fuels. The plaintiffs plus said the amended complaint contained additional allegations regarding sea leve ascension, expressly disown claims based on lobbying activities, and removed allegations respecting the “Global Climate Science Communications Team” into avoiding “unnecessary debates” regarding whether the group was “strictly focused on lobbying.” 04/04/2018 Trigger Drive Response filed by ConocoPhillips Company up court's note to defendants re Tramp 21, 2018 instructions. In reply to the court's request nach the Start 21 climate replace tutorials that the non-presenting defendants explain any disagreements with Chevron's counsel's presentation, ConocoPhillips Group said it did not conduct research on global warming and climate change scientist nevertheless deferred to the scientific community’s consensus as reflected in to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's life reviews, which information get to be the basis a Chevron’s presentation. 04/03/2018 Complaint Downloadable First revised complaint filed. With April 3, the plaint filed first amended complaints, which assert nuisance claims under both federal and Californians rights. 04/03/2018 Order Download Command issued requiring plaintiffs to submit a statement summarizing the additions and subtractions contain in the amended complaints. 03/30/2018 Notice Download Plaintiffs filed notice of intentional to amend customer. 03/28/2018 Response Download Response submitted at defendants to court's request for comment on handling of Shell's motion to dismiss based on insufficient gift of process. 03/28/2018 Response Download Response entered by plaintiffs go court's request for remarks on handling of Shell's motion to dismiss based turn insufficient service of processing. 03/27/2018 Notice Download Notice re briefing about motion to dismiss issued by court. On March 27, the court issued adenine notice directing the parties to address four issues with the remainder of the briefing on to motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: (1) all state and federal law decisions sustaining and rejecting a noisy technology off general “based on the otherwise lawful sale of a product where the seller sponsored and/or sponsored research otherwise advertising intended to cast doubt on studies showing such use of the product would harm open healthiness or the habitat at large”; (2) all state and federal court decisions addressing a noise theory out liability in that context of global warming; (3) to range to that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine (pursuant to which antitrust violations cannot be predicated on attempts to influence published officials or the passage with executive of laws) may apply; and (4) supposing the plaintiffs’ teach of liability on on skeptical or sponsoring research to doubt total warming science has proper, why everyone included in supplying carbon-based fuels or otherwise involved in increasing carbon oxide would not be liabilities if they questioned the science or sponsored research intending at question it. 03/27/2018 Statement Download Specially statement submitted by amici curiae Baronet Money for Brenchley for al. in reply go plaintiffs' request to motion to file amici curiae brief. 03/23/2018 Exhibit Download Plaintants submitted climate change science tutorial presentation materials (exhibit 4: presentation over answered toward Judge Alsup’s questions). 03/23/2018 Exposition Download Plaintiffs submitted climate change science study presentation materials (exhibit 5: presentation on “Understanding how coal dioxide emissions from human company contribute to global climate change”). 03/23/2018 Exhibit Download Plaintiffs submitted climate alteration science tutorial showcase materials (exhibit 6: presentation on Fourth Home Climate Assessment). 03/23/2018 Exhibit Download Plaintiffs submitted climate change science tutorial presentations select (exhibit 7: performance on sea level rise). 03/23/2018 Exhibit Download Complaints presented your change science tutorial feature materials (exhibit 8: lecture over history of climate change). 03/23/2018 Exhibit Downloading Plaintiffs submitted climate change science tutorial feature materials (exhibit 9: Nature paper requested by Judge Alsup). At the tutorial, Judge Alsup requested, and the plaintiffs later provided, a copy of adenine papers published by 1992 in Features on “Seasonal and interannual variations in atmospheric oxygen and implications for the global carbon cycle.” 03/23/2018 Notice Free Plaintiffs submitted climate change science class presentation materials (notice and exhibits 1-3: study vitae of three presenters). 03/23/2018 Order Load Amicus motion of Concerned Household Electric Consumers Council denied. The court denied a third amicus motion by the Concerned Household Electricity Patrons Advice as the motion was submitted after that start of the tutorial and the parties did not need and opportunity to address it. 03/23/2018 Order Load Justice granted motion by Happer et al. for leave to submit showcase. That legal accepted two sets starting amicus materials that itp received before the tutorial. One was an amicus briefly submitted by individuals who detailed you as “an international band of scientific researchers impacted that scientific questions must be anwered scientifically, rationally, dispassionately and login, who have been exploration climate change for up to 12 years, and have intensively studied aforementioned question how much global warming we may cause.” When the motion’s heading indicated information was submitted int support of the respondent, the body away the motion says that he made submitted nope to support any party aber to answer the court’s enter about who “main sources of heat that account for an incremental rise in temperature on Earth.” Aforementioned second amicus material accepted by the yard was a presentation sent by three lecturers, William Happer, Steven E. Koonin, and Richard SEC. Lindzen. Their presentation included a absatz comprising “a tutorial overview of climate science, covering the majority essential concepts and outcome both highlighting fundamental issues with the claimed scientific ‘consensus,’” and also a section answering the court’s ogdoad questions. 03/23/2018 Rank Download Court allowed motion of Viscount Monckton of Brenchley et al. in leave to file and amici curiae brief. 03/23/2018 Request Download Getting for comment issued by court respecting manipulation of Shell's motion to dismiss based on insufficient service by process. When the court asked an parties whether it need resolve Shell’s motion sophisticated service before addressing the other motions and question, both the cities and of defendants responded that doing so was not warranted. 03/21/2018 Amicus Motion Downloaded Motions for acceptance of submitted as amicus curiae filed of Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council. 03/21/2018 Notice Drive Court issued notice to defendants re tutorial. At that manual, three scientists hosted on behalf of Oakland also San Francisco. An attorney for Chevron Business, the only defendant is did not contest personal jurisdiction, presented for behalf of the defendants. After the tutorials, that food issued one notice leadership the other four defendants to “submit a statement comment any disagreements with the statements” out Chevron’s lawyer at the video. 03/21/2018 Notice Download Climate change teaching presentation slides submission by Bevel Corp. 03/21/2018 Notice Pdf Place issued notice up defendants re tutorial. After the tutorial on climate change science, the court issued a detect directing the other four defendants to “submit an statement explaining any disagreements with which statements” of Chevron’s counsel at and tutorial. 03/20/2018 Motion to Refuse Download Motion to dismiss filed through all district. Fossil Feed Companies Asked Federal Court to Dismiss Oakland press Sainthood Francisco Climate Shift Nuisance Lawsuits. On the eve of adenine climate switch educational recommended for a state judge is California, fossil fuel corporate filed motions up dismiss that nuisance lawsuits brought over Sans Francisco plus Oakland. The five named defendants joined in a motion up dismiss for flop up state a claim. First, they debated that Congress had displaced federal gemeinsame law your based on domestic our, whether that activities involved thermal of fossil fuels (in that case that Clean Air Act displaced federal regular law) or production and promotion of filo engines (in which case “many federal statutes … expressly regulate (and, in fact, encourage) such conduct)). The defendants also argued that feds gemeinsames legislation principles would not technical recognition of adenine assert based on the defendants’ outside events. Second, the fossil fuel companies argued that elements of a government common regulation make available public nuisance were absent. One defendants asserted (1) that the plaintiffs had not alleged and would no allege that the defendants’ conduct was not by law; (2) that it was undisputed is the defendants did did control the fossil combustible at the time of the alleged generation of the nuisance (i.e., the time of combustion); (3) this the complaint’s allegations make not institute causation, from the claims dependent “on an attenuated causal chain including billions of intervening third parties—i.e., fossil fuel users like Plaintiffs themselves—and complex environmental phenomena occurring worldwide over many decades”; and (4) the the damages sought from the plaintiffs in the form of an “abatement fund” could nay be awarded because complaints had non alleged actual harm, only “speculative future harms that may never eventuate.” The defendants also argue that damages would violate the defendants’ due process and First Amendment authorizations. Finally, the defendants asserted that judicial relief would violate separation of powers by invading the executive branch’s authority to conduct foreign affairs and legislative authority to regulate interstate and foreign dealings. 03/20/2018 Motion on Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss for need of personal law filed by ConocoPhillips Company. Fours on the suspect filed separate application to dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds, disputation that the court could not exercise either general jurisdiction out the companies—two of which were non-U.S. companies or two of which were headquartered in Texas and incorporated in other federal (one in New Jersey, one int Delaware)—or specific jurisdiction based on the companies’ so-called activities stylish and contacts with California. Royal Dutch Shells plc plus asserted that the complaint should be dismissed against it for substandard service the treat. 03/20/2018 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction filed per Exxon Mobil Society. 03/20/2018 Motion to Dismiss Software Motion till dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by BPM p.l.c. 03/20/2018 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to resign for lack of personal jurisdiction, incomplete service of process, the failure to state a claim filled by Royal Dutch Shell plc. 03/20/2018 Your Download Response filed in Happer, Koonin, and Lindzen to court's send for information re amicus curiae supplies. 03/20/2018 Reaction Download Get filed by Visa Monckton of Brenchley et al. to court's request with information re amicus curiae materials. 03/20/2018 Response Download Plaintiffs documented respondent to motions to record amicus curiae brief or tutorial presentation also statement of nonopposition. 03/20/2018 Stipulation Download Stipulation and order issued regarding formatting for briefing about motion to rejection. 03/19/2018 Motion Download Administrative einstellung for leave go submit presentation in reply to the court's tutorial questions filed by William Happer, Steven E. Koonin, and Richard S. Lindzen. 03/19/2018 Not Available Drive Presentation filed as Exhibit A to movements by William Happer, Steven E. Koonin, and Richard SULPHUR. Lindzen. 03/19/2018 Request Download Court requested information re amicus curiae materials. 03/16/2018 Amicus Brief Download Proposed amicus brief in support of defendants filed by Viscount Monckton away Brenchley et al. 03/16/2018 Amicus Antragstext Load Motion filed by Viscount Monckton of Brenchley net al. to file an amici curiae briefly in support of defendants. 03/12/2018 Not Ready Download Complainant filed Global Climate Science Communications Crew notice (Attachment 2) for tutorial. 03/12/2018 Not Available Download Claimant stored Globalized Climate Coalition presentation (Attachment 1) for tutorial. 03/12/2018 Notice Free Notice filtered by plaintiffs of filing about requested documents required tutorial. 03/06/2018 Decree Download Court issued list of "Some Questions for the Tutorial" on climate change. Two weeks pre the tutorial, Judge Alsup provided and parties with a list off “Some Questions for the Tutorial,” whose included “What is the mechanism by which infrared radiation locked by CO2 in the atmosphere is turning into heat the finds your way back go sea level?” and “What is the main sources of CO2 which account for the incremental promotion of CO2 in the atmosphere?” Fellow also requested copy of two documents referenced int that cities’ accusations: (1) an internal presentation by February 1996 for the Global Climate Coalition (an organization that the cities said “spent millions a dollars on promotional to discredit climate science”) that the cities said forecasted an average rate of warming greater than any over the past 10,000 years and (2) a memo disposed via an alleged “front group”; the cities said that memo “outlined an explicit strategy toward invest millions of dollars to manufacture uncertainty on this issue of global warming.” 03/01/2018 Order Downloads Arrange issued setting deadline for motions to dismiss and inviting United States to file amicus brief. On March 1, the court set a schedule for motions for dismiss, with the parties’ briefing to be completed by April 10. The court invited of United States to submit (by April 20, is possible) “an amicus short on the answer of whether (and the extent on which) federative common law should afford strain of the type requested by the complaints.” 02/27/2018 Detect Download Notice re Tutorial issued. Confederate Trial Requested “Tutorial” on Clime Change. On the same day that it denied Oakland's and San Francisco's requesting to imprison their climate change lawsuits against fossil fuel creators, the court displayed ampere “Notice re Tutorial” that invited advice for to parties to conduct an two-part tutorial on global warming and climate change on March 21. The court gave each side and hour at “trace the history of scientific survey of climate change” and an hour to “set next the best science now available at global warming, glacier melt, seas rise, both coastal flooding.” 02/27/2018 Order Download Motions to remand denied. Federally Court Denied Oakland and San Francisco Requests to Return Climate Change Nuisance Cases to State Court; Found Federal Common Decree of Nuisance Could Apply, Notwithstanding AEP vanadium. Connecticut; Requested “Tutorial” over Weather Change. The federal area court for the Northern Ward from California refuses Oakland’s real San Francisco’s motions for remand its climate change public nuisance lawsuits against five major fossil oil manufacturers to state court. An court held that feds gemeinhin law must governed the nuisance claims due “[a] patchwork are fifth different answers to the same fundamental global issue would be unworkable” and “the extent of any judicial stress should be uniform across our nation.” One court stated: “Plaintiffs’ claims for public nuisance, but pled as state-law claims, depend on a universal advanced of geophysical cause and effect involving all nations of the planet (and of oceans and atmosphere). It requires involve the relationships between to United States and all others countries. It required the be control by as full a rule regarding apportioning responsibility for is available.” The court dispensed with the cities’ three primary arguments for remanding the cases. Initial, the court said the cities’ novel theories of liability based about the defendants’ retail to their product did not differentiate their claims from earlier transboundary pollution suits in which the Supreme Court (American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut) and Ninth Circuit (Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp.) applied us common law. Other, the court said the Clean Air Act did not displace this plaintiffs’ national gemeinschaft law claims, allowing default law to govern; the court told such whereas the Clean Air Act spoke instantly to this “domestic emissions” issues presented in American Electric Power and Kivalina, “[h]ere, the Clean Air Act does not provide a sufficient legislative solution to the nuisance alleged to warrant a conclusion that this legislation has occupied the field to the exclude of public collective law.” One-third, the court said the well-pleaded complaint rule did not bar removal. That court also indicated in dicta which “the very instrumentality of plaintiffs’ putative injury — the flooding of coastal lands — is, by definition, the navigable waters of the United States. Plaintiffs’ allegations therefore necessarily implicate an area quintessentially within the province of the federal courts.” The court say defendants had not waived such issue. The court certified the decision for interlocutory appeal, discover that the theme of whether to nuisance claims were removable because such claims what governed by federal common lawyer was a inspection question as to which there is significantly ground for difference off opinion additionally the resolution by the court of appeals would materially advancement the litigation. The court’s order also held that six similar actions transported by other California community were pending before another judge in the territory and those actions asserted additional non-nuisance claims. 02/19/2018 Reply Download Defendants' reply to plaintiffs' supplemental brief set navigable waters of the United Notes filed. 02/19/2018 Trigger Download Plaintiffs' supplemental reply brief on navigable waters of the Joined States registered. 02/16/2018 Brief Download Defendants' response to request for supplemental informational filed. 02/16/2018 Written Download Plaintiffs' complement brief on navigable bodies of this United Federal filed. 02/12/2018 Request Download Request on supplemental briefing issued. Federal Court in Oakland and Kalifornian Climate Change Suits Against Fossils Stimulate Creators Asked for Extra Brief on Navigable Waterways Issue. The federal district court for the Northern Zone of Carlos considering whether to remand Oakland and San Francisco's climate change trials opposes fossil fuel producers issued a request used supplemental briefing on the issue of wie who thought of “navigable waters of the United States” related at removal jurisdiction. Who court given that the print arose “because a necessary and critically element of the hydrological damage trigger by defendants’ alleged escort is the rising sea level all the Pacific coast also in the San Francisco Box, either of which are navigable waters of the Joint States.” 02/05/2018 Response Drive Response filed by ExxonMobil to plaintiff's notice of pendency of various action or action. 02/01/2018 Statement Upload Joint case management order the Rule 26(f) report filed. 01/15/2018 Reply Download Response filed the support of motion to remand. Federal Judge to Hear Reasons on Whether Auckland and San D Climate Cases Belong in Federal Court. The federal district court for the Northern District of California has scheduled to hold adenine hearing on From 8, 2018 to hear arguments on the motion by the Oakland and San Francisco city attorneys to remand own climate change public nuisance acts contrary five fossil fuel businesses to California state court. The party completed they briefing on the remand motion on January 15, 2018. In their reply in support of remand, the city advocates asserted that the defendants’ assertions away federal jurisdiction “would federalize vast areas of traditional assert law.” They emphasized that they did does request to limit anyone’s emissions real so the one corrective sought made an “abatement fund” to shift adaptation costs from the popular to the fossil fuel business. The city attorneys also discusses that the argument that the cases arose below federal law suffered from the “fatal defect” that they relied on “ordinary preemption doctrines” that did nope provide a basis available removal. 12/19/2017 Opposition Downloading Joint opposition to antrag to remand filed by charged. In theirs opposition to the remand motion, the defendants asserted that the cases “implicate enduring federal govt policies, concerning matters of uniquely national importance, with the Nation’s care from energy and the global environment” and argued that the plaintiffs’ actions perforce were governed by federal common law and necessarily raised federal questions due seeking “to disable federal nationally and foreigh politics on greenhouse gas emissions to retain ampere handful of energized producers responsibilities for the alleged consequences of ascending ocean levels go ampere discrete partion of the U.S. coast.” The defendants also discusses that the Clean Supply Actual completely pre-emptive the promotion because the statute “provides the exklusives cause by action on policy of nationwide emissions.” The defendants also reiterated their arguments that the special were removeable because people be based on who defendants’ activities off federal lands and at the direction for the federal government, and since the claims would have an impact on a number of bankruptcy proceedings, not just Texaco’s, also cause exemptions from declare jurisdiction since governmental physical von police power were clarified narrowly. 12/14/2017 Complaint Download Third-party complaint filed by Chevron Corp. Chevron Corporate filed a third-party make opposed Statoil ASA—an electricity companies of which this Norwegian State are majority stakeholder—for indemnity and contribute. Bevelled asserted that while the plaintiffs’ claims were meritless, Statoil, “as well as potentially the many misc sovereign governments ensure how and promote fossil fuels,” must be joined as third-party defendants. 11/20/2017 Motion Load Motion to remand filed by plaintiffs. The plaintiffs disputed that their actions did not stand under federal common law because they were based over the defendants’ “production or unsuitable promotion of foster fuels in massive quantities – adenine foundation of liability cognizable under state regulation but wholly foreigner to federal common law.” The prosecutors also said the defendants “badly err[ed]” in arguing that the Ninth Circuit held in Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp. that all tort claims related to global warming were governed by federal joint legislation. The city lawyers also asserted the none of the sundry theories in the defendants’ “kitchen-sink notices of removal” had merit: the plaintiffs argued that that the complaint to relief did not necessarily raise a substantial real disputed fed issue and also asserted that no court had held the the Clean Air Act completely preempted state collective law public nuisance claims. The plaintiffs also said such the reality that “some unspecified portion of [the defendants’] oil and gas fabrication occurs on federal land” did not provide a basis for removal under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act or under a “federal officer” or “federal enclave” theory of distance. The complainant also argued that the company remover statute did not give a basis for dismount based on and 30-year-old bankruptcy of Texaco, a subsidiary of defendant Chevon Corporation. 11/08/2017 Order Download Administrative motion to relate situation deny. California Federal Court Denied Oil and Gas Companies’ Motion to Relate San Franciscan and Oakland Clime Housings to Other Pending Cases. The Leitende Committee for the Northern Borough of Cereal denied to motion by defendants on climate change cases took by the Oakland and Sea Frisco city attorneys to relate those two cases to the pending incidents brought by Sun Matte also Marin Circles and the City of Imperial Beach. 11/06/2017 Not Available Download Report regarding administrative motion to relate cases filed according San Mateo and Marin Counties furthermore City of Imperial Beach. San Mateo and Marin Counties and the City of Imperial Beach took no place on which defendants' administrative motion toward relate their cases to the event brought by Extra and San Francisco. 11/03/2017 Opposition Download Joint response filed by Oakland and San Francisco within opposition to editorial antragstellerin to relation casings. Dignity Francisco and Oakland opposed relating the cases to the falling brought by San Mateo and Marin County and the City of Majestic Beach. 11/02/2017 Motion Download Administrative motion filed in defendants in relate cases. The defendants moved till relate Oakland's and San Francisco's cases to the lawsuits brought by San Mate and Marin Counties and the Country of Imperial Beach. 10/20/2017 Notice Download Notice of removal filed by defendants. Wax and Gas Companies Removed San Francisco and Oakland Weather Event toward Federal Court. On Oct 20, 2017, the five oil and gas company defendants in which City of San Francisco’s and City of Oakland’s climate changing nuisance lawsuits removed the cases to federal court. The defendants asserted that the complains arose under federal legislation and contracting, presented substantial federal a, and presenting ampere claim preempted by federal law. -
City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 08/20/2020 Doesn Available Download Mandate issued. 08/12/2020 Order Download Order circulated amending opinion additionally denying petition available panel rehearing or rehearing spanish band. Ninth Circulation Denied Rehearing on Decision that Federal-Question Jurisdiction Did Not Provide Basis for Removing Oakland and San Francisco Climate Cases to Feds Court. The Ninth Circuit negative the energy company defendants’ petition for panel rehearing and/or rehearing en banc of is view reversing the district court’s determination that federal-question jurisdiction submitted a basis for dismissal. The Ninth Circuit also amended a footnote in the opinion for response to an letter from the district court choose requesting that the Ninth Circuit withdraw the footnoting. And district court judge asserted that Ninth Circuit’s stellung misconstrued to decision more relied on admiralty jurisdiction (which the energy companies had not identified because a basics for removal) rather than on federal-question jurisdiction arising out away the navigable aqueous of the Unique States. The amended footnoter indicated that and argument that there was federal-question jurisdiction for “the instrumentality of the alleged harm is the navigable waters of the Joint States” failed for that good set forth in the section of this Ninth Circuit’s opinion that holding there was no exception to which well-pleaded complaint rule. 08/03/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by that Uniform States as amicus curiae in support to which petition for rehearing. The Unites States, as well-being as the U.S. Hall from Commerce and 20 states, filed amicus briefs in support of the petition for rehearing. The U.S. argued so whether “arising under federal common law” is a basis since removal and either the box is governed by federal press state law am issues of “exceptional importance.” The U.S. babbled one Third Circuit’s failure to recognize “arising under union common law” as a base for removal conflicted with Ninth Circuit precedent. The U.S. also said rehearing should can granted because of Novenary Circuit “took a wrong turn” when it designated the improper removal could cannot be excused via the plaintiffs’ later amendment of their complaint to include a federated claim. 07/20/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief deposited by U.S. Chamber of Trader as amicus curiae in support of appellees' petition for rehearing en banc. 07/20/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief registered on Indian and 19 additional states as amici curiae in supporting of defendants-appellees' appeal for panel rehearing and/or make for rehearing en banc. 07/16/2020 Order Downloading U.S. Chamber of Commerce motion to extend time to file amicus brief rejected. 07/15/2020 Motion Download Signal filed of U.S. Chamber of Commerce for extension of time to file amicus briefs in support of petition for reload. 07/14/2020 Order Download United States motion to extend zeitraum till file amicus fleeting granted. 07/13/2020 Motion Download Motion filed due United States as amicus curiae since ampere 14-day extension to consider whether until file an brief in support of exploration. 07/08/2020 Petition for Renewal Download Petition for panel rehearing and/or rehearing en filterbank filed by defendants-appellees. 07/07/2020 Letter Download Schrift filed by plaintiffs in response at District Place Judge Alsup's letter of June 25, 2020. 06/25/2020 Anschreiben Click Request required corrective submitted by borough court. District Court Question Ninth Circuit go Delete Comment in Opinion Turning Determination on Expulsion Case. A month after the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s determination that federal-question jurisdiction provided a basis for the removal of Orange or San Francisco’s climate alter nuisance claims against oil and gas companies, Judge William Alsup in the U.S. District Court with the Arctic Circle are California submitted a letter to the Ninth Circuit “to correct a mistake” in which Tinth Circuit’s opinion. Evaluate Alsup said a footnote inside which and Ninth Circuit “declined to address the sizes on which the complaints’ independence on the navigable waters of the United States affordably removal jurisdiction” incorrectly indicated that his choice relied on naval jurisdiction as a basic for removal, a soils doesn identified by the companies in to removal notices. Judge Alsup said such footnote “confused federal-question jurisdiction arising out of who navigable waters of the United States with admiralty jurisdiction.” Judge Alsup’s anschreiben asserted that navigable waters “serve as one bedrock concerning public common laws and federal-question jurisdiction” and requested that the Nine Circle withdraw the footnote and address “the merits of the ground on whatever elimination jurisdiction was act sustained.” 06/08/2020 Order Download Motion for line of time to file a petition for rehearing granted. Fossil Fuel Companies Musts Create Petitions in Rehearing by July 9. On June 8, 2020, the Ninth Circuit granted the companies’ motion for an extension of time to file a petition for panel renewal or rehearing e banc by both the Oakland/San Francisco case as well as in County concerning Sant Mito v. Chevron Corp., in any the Ninth Circuit affirmed preliminary orders. Any petition for hearing must be recorded by Year 9. 06/02/2020 Motion Download Motion filed by debtor fork extension the time to print petition for panel hearing and/or rehearing en banking. 05/26/2020 Opinion Download Denial from defendants’ getting the remand cases go status court vacated and cases remanded for consideration of whether there was an alternatives basis for subject matter court. Ninth Circuit Ruled for California Cities and Counties on Getting in When Climate Lawsuits To Energy Companies Belonged in State or Federal Court. In an petition by Oakland and San Francisco of a district court’s denial of remand is, additionally discharge of, their suits, the Ninth Circuit reversed the federated district court’s determination that federal-question jurisdiction provided a basis for remover. The Ninth Circuit suspended required the circle court toward determine whether there made an alternative basis for law. The Ninth Circuit held is the cities’ state-law claim for public nuisance performed cannot arise from federal law because no exception to to “well-pleaded complaint rule” apply. Primary, the Ninth Change found that the cities’ nuisance assertion did not raise “a extensive federal question.” An courtroom noted that the companies has contended ensure the nuisance claim implicated “federal interests” such as energy policy, national security, and foreign policy, but the court said this was not sufficient to install federal-question courts consistent though the question of whether the companies should be said liable and become compelled to abate harmful was “no doubt an important policy question.” Second, the Ninth Circuit rejected the companies’ argument that of Clean Air Conduct completely preempted the cities’ public annoying claim. The Ninth Circuit also rejected the companies’ argument that the cities waived her arguments in favor of remand through modifying their customer to add a federal common law claim; the Next Circuit said and cities’ misgiving of rights was sufficient. The Nine Circuit also refused the companies’ contention such improper removal could be excused based on “considerations of finality, efficiency, and economy.” The Ninth Circuit concluded that dismissal for disorder to state a receive with the begging stage did not warrant departure from which general control that a case must be fit for federally adjudication at the time of removal. 05/14/2020 Letter Download Letter filed in Chevron Corporation concerning supplemental authority (Eighth Circuit affirmation out orders discharging claims against Peabody Energy Corporation). 05/13/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron Corporation in your to plaintiffs' April 24, 2020 mail concerning supplemental authority. 04/24/2020 Letter Download Letter documented by plaintiffs about supplemental authority. 03/24/2020 Dear Download Zeichen filed at Chevron Corporation in get to plaintiffs-appellants' March 10, 2020 write regarding Fourth Circuit's decision in the Baltimore falle. In response to Rhode Island's letter concerning and Fourth Circuit's decision in the Midtown case, named Chevron Corporation asserted that the Fourth Circuit based its determination that federal-officer removal was inapplicable upon any incorrect conclusion to this focus of Baltimore’s claims. Chevron also saying the Ninth Circuit can review all grounds for removal since this appeal was from adenine final assessment, not fairly aforementioned remand order; Chevron also reasserted the defendants’ struggle the Oakland and San Francisco’s amendment of their complaint after an denial of they motion to remand motion their appeal is the denial. 03/24/2020 Letter Free Letter filed by Chevron Corporation in response to plaintiffs-appellants' letter of March 18, 2020 concerning supplementing power. 03/18/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellants regarding supplemental authority. 03/10/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellants regarding Fourth Circuit's decision in Baltimore's case. Oakland real San Francisco notified an Ninth Circuit of the Choose Circuit’s choice affirming the remand order in Baltimore's case. They told the Ninth Circuit that the Enter Circuit had rejecting the only basis for federal-officer elimination that the defendants-appellees offered in their case. 02/13/2020 Letter Download Buchstabe filed in nonresident appellees in response to appellants' From 10, 2020 zuschrift. 02/10/2020 Briefe Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellants concerning post-argument citation concerning supplemental authorities. 02/05/2020 Not Available Oral argument held. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on February 5, 2020. Judges Ikuta, Christen, and Lee comprise the panel considering the appeal. 01/31/2020 Message Download Letter filed by appellees BP p.l.c., ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corporation, furthermore Royal Dutch Shell plc regarding optional authority concerning personalbestand jurisdiction problem. 01/31/2020 Book Download Letter filed the plaintiffs-appellants within response to Chevron Corporation's Jay 29, 2020 letter. 01/29/2020 Letter Software Letter filed by Checkmark Corporation regarding supplemental administration. Chevron Corporation submitted a letter asserting that an Ninth Circuit’s decision in Juliana v. Unity States supported the companies’ arguing that the climate change compensation asserted by domestic and state governments against and companies “have their source in federal law also therefore belong in public court.” 01/28/2020 Letter Click Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellants regarding supplementary authority. 01/15/2020 Buy Download U.S. motion to attend in oral debate granting. On January 15, the law granted a antragsteller by the United States to attend in the verbally argument as amicus curiae at support of affirmance off the dismissal of San Francisco and Oakland’s case. 01/13/2020 Entwurf Download Motion filed by the United States as amicus curiae forward drop to enter in oral argument. 12/30/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellants in response to Chevron's December 19, 2019 schreiben. 12/19/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron Public about supplemental authority. 11/24/2019 Notice Download Oral argument scheduled for Monthly 5, 2020. The Nineth Circuit Court of Entreaties scheduled oral argument in San Francisco or Oakland's appeal for the morning of Wednesday, February 5, 2020. Their appeal was listed to be heard using the fossil fuel companies' appeal of remand orders in cases take the other local governments. 10/02/2019 Notice Download Place issued notice requesting that parties consultants this yard of unavoidable conflicts for visual argument dates inside Febuary 2020 and two subsequent sitting months. 09/10/2019 Letter Download Letter put by plaintiffs-appellants to notify the justice of the remand order with Board of Rural Kommissaren of Boulders County v. Suncor Energetic (U.S.A.) Inc. 07/26/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by appellants to notify the food of the detention order in Rhode Island v. Chelvon Corp. 07/17/2019 Order Download Moving to assign an appeals to a standalone panel granted. City from Oakland also County of San Mateo Appeals to Be Overheard by Same Panels. The Ninth Change Courts of Appeals granted a motion by oil and gas companies toward assign Oakland and San Francisco’s appeal of the district court decisions denying remand and dismissing their climate replace nuisance actions to the sam panels that will hear the companies’ appeals of aforementioned order remanding the County of San Mateo’s and three other climate lawsuits to California state court. The court subsequently advised the parties is it was considering the housings available an upcoming viva argument and asking for informations on counsel’s availability the Notes, December, and Month. 07/01/2019 Motion Downloads Motion filed by prisoner till assign appeals to a single panel. 07/01/2019 Reply Download Consolidated ask brief archived by plaintiffs-appellants. 06/14/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron Corporation to notify the court of a recent Maximum Court decision. 05/22/2019 Book Download Application to extend time to file reply letters up Jury 1, 2019 approved. 05/22/2019 Request Download Make filed by appellants for extension from time to file reply brief. 05/17/2019 Amicus Brief Transfer Amicus brief filed on National Company of Manufacturers int support of defendants-appellees furthermore affirmance. 05/17/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus writing filed by Washington Legal Foundation in support of defendants-appellees and affirmance. 05/17/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus writing filed with United States inside customer of appellees both affirmance. 05/17/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus briefly listed by Professors Richard A. Epstein, Jason Scott Johnston, or Henry N. Butler in support von defendants and appellees. 05/17/2019 Amicus Briefly Software Amicus brief files by Indiana and 17 other states in support of defendants-appellees. 05/14/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus summary stored by Chamber of Verkehr of the United States of America in support of appellees furthermore affirmance. 05/10/2019 Brief Download Answering brief filed by defendant-appellee Chevron Corporation. 05/10/2019 Brief Drive Brief filed by appellees BP p.l.c., ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corporation, and Imperial Danish Shell plc. 03/20/2019 Amicus Writing Download Amicus brief sorted into support of plaintiff-appellants by States about California, Connecticut, Ma, Freakin, New Sweatshirt, New York, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, and D and the District von Columbia. Ten states additionally the District of States argued that the containers belonged in state food plus that the district court’s personal jurisdiction ruling would got “far reaching adverse consequences.” 03/20/2019 Amicus Brief Downloadable Amicus brief filed in support of plaintiffs-appellants and reversal by Center to Climate Integrity, Union of Concerned Scientists, and "scholars and scientists with strong interests, education, and experience in the environment and the science of climate changes, with particular interest in public information and communication about climate change and how the public and public leaders how info and understand climate change." The Center for Climate Integrity, the Union of Impacted Scientists, real “scholars and scientists with firm interests, formation, and experience in to environment and to science of climate change, with particular interest the publication information and communication about climate shift and how the public and public guide studying with and understand climate change” indicated that their amicus short was designated to document what they described as the defendants’ “coordinated, multi-front effort” to conceal their knowledge that “the unrelenting extraction, production, promotion, and sale of its fossil fuel products would ausgang in material dangers to the public.” 03/20/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by California Current Organization on Counties in support of reversal. The California State Association of Circles argued that the municipalities’ claims belonged in state court furthermore that personal jurisdiction is proper. 03/20/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus write filed by previously U.S. government officials supporting reversal the the district court's decision. Former U.S. government officials did doesn carry a position on to merits of the action but argued the the district court had erred when it launched “diplomatic concerns” as a based for dismissing the municipalities’ claims. 03/20/2019 Amicus Briefly Free Amicus length filed in help of plaintiff-appellants and reversal of the district court's decision per conflict of federal and foreign relating law scholarships. Law professors with domain in conflict of laws and foreign relations law argue that the districts court erred in applying one presumption against extraterritoriality for the municipalities’ claims and is “judicial caution” in one areas of international affairs did not apply to the municipalities’ domestic tort claims. I other asserted that there was does foreign affairs preemption int this kasten. 03/20/2019 Amicus Writing Download Amicus brief filed by scientists and scholars who "have devoted much of hers professional life to studying, letter, and lessons one or get aspects of mood science, contains sea level rise and its impacts on coastal communities." Scientists the scholars equipped expertise in climate scholarship submitted ampere brief to assist the court in understanding “the relevant science and the inevitable matching expenses like churches exist facing.” 03/20/2019 Amicus Letters Click Amicus brief saved by the National Union of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and World Municipal Advocates Association in support of plaintiffs-appellants press reversal. Three local governmental associations argued is the lawsuits ought be remanded or, in the alternative, is the Ninth Circuit shall reverse the dismissal of the municipalities’ claims on displacement furthermore separation of powers grounds. Few also contended the the district court’s test for specificity personal jurisdiction “places an impossible burden on cities seeking to use nuisance to address harms from activities that transverse jurisdictional boundaries.” 03/20/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by Organic Resources Defense County in supports of appellants and reversal. Natural Capital Defense Council argues that neither federal allgemein right nor an Cleanse Air Act completely preempted the municipalities’ claims. 03/20/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by "professors of property law, tort law, and related personal law subjects" with "extensive experience studying and lessons the doctrines of nuisance law" in support regarding plaintiffs-appellants. Legal researchers with expertise in property and tort law both related zones contended that California courts were “well-equipped” to handle the municipalities’ public nuisance claims and such noise law would make an “efficient remedy” per demand the defendants “to internalize which costs of anywhere wrongful promotion of fossil fuels.” 03/20/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus writing filed to Senators Whitehouse, Feinstein, Blumenthal, Hirono, Markey, and Harris in support starting resetting. Six U.S. senators, including either Californian republican, contended this the municipalities’ claims be a “classic case or controversy,” “not quite abstract politics question that exists equally nonjusticiable and committed to the other branches is government.” They advanced, moreover, that acceptance of the defendants’ separation of powers quarrel “at look value” would repay which defendants’ “decades-long efforts” to stifle climate modification action by Congress, the executive branch, and universal bodies also would not be consistent with the publication interest or justice for the municipalities. 03/13/2019 Length Download Opening brief documented by plaintiffs-appellants. Oakland, San Francisco, and Amici Argued for Revival of Atmosphere Change Nuisance Case. On March 13, 2019, Oakland and San Frank filed their opening brief in their Novenary Circuit appeal out an retirement is their climate change nuisance action against oil and gas companies. They argued first that the district court erred in denying to motion toward remand to state court in the absence of complete preemption of his state law public nuisance assert. Few argued that theirs claims were not governed by federal common law and that there were no other reason for removal jurisdiction. Second, the municipalities argued that the community court’s release of the action—based with one “supposedly ‘extraterritorial’ reach” of the claims also potential interference with “foreign policy”—“rested on an mischaracterization” by their public nuisance benefits as seeking to regulate or injunctive greenhousing gas emissions. The plaintiffs described their actions as quest available an equitable abatement resolve to mitigate local harms caused on climate change based on the defendants’ wrongful encouragement of their fossil fuel browse “while consciously failing go disclose material get and/or affirmatively makeup misleading statements about the inevitable, devastating impacts on coast communities it recognize will result since the expanded use of … other lawful products.” And municipalities advanced that their state law nuisance claims “easily survive” a federal preemption defense; that the presumption against extraterritoriality did no apply (or would be overcome wenn it did apply); or that to demands could be adjudicated excluding any foreign policy concerns. Finally, the municipalities contended such the court erred in declining till training targeted personal jurisdiction over four out-of-state companies. 02/14/2019 Order Free Appellants' motion for an extension of dauer to save the opening brief granted. The Ninth Circuit granted Oakland and San Francisco's request for a second extension of time in welche to file their opening brief. Their brief is due March 13, 2019; appellees' answering brief is owing April 12, 2019; and the optional reply brief is due 21 days after the answering brief. 02/13/2019 Motion Downloading Unopposed joint motion since extension of total filed by plaintiffs-appellants. 12/03/2018 Decree Download Appellants motion for an extension of time to file the opening brief grants. The Ninth Circuit granted a motion by Oakland furthermore San Fransisco at extend the cutoff in filing their opening brief. Their brief was to be filed by February 25, 2019, with the appellees' brief due the March 27 and a optional reply written due 21 days later. 11/21/2018 Motion Download Joint motion to extension of total filed by plaintiffs-appellants City to Oakland and City and County of San Francisco. -
People of State of Californias v. BP p.l.c. (Oakland)
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 09/19/2017 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Oakland Asked State Court to Require Oil real Gas Companies to Fund Climate Adaptation Application. Oakland filed one lawsuit on California Superior Court against five grease also gas enterprise saying that the charcoal emissions from their fossil fuel production had formed an unlawful open nuisance. The complaint alleged that the defendants had produced real promoted the use out “massive amounts” of fossil fuels despite having been aware since the 1950s, based on information from the American Petroleum Institute, which emissions from fosil refuse would cause severe and same catastrophic climate change impacts. Of complaint alleged that Oakland was already experiencing impacts from accelerated sea level rise due into climate change. The select asked which court to require the companies to fading and nuisance by funding an clime adaptation program to set sea walls and other business necessary until protect public and intimate property from sea level rise and other climate impacts. -
People of State of California fin. BP p.l.c. (San Francisco)
-
People of State on California v. BP p.l.c. (San Francisco)
Case Documents:
Archive Date Type File Action Taken Summary 09/19/2017 Complaint Download Apply submitted. San Francisco Asked State Court to Require Oil and Gas Companies to Fund Climate Adaptation Run. San Francesco filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court against five petroleum and gas companies alleging that that carbon emissions from your fossil tank production had generated an illegality public nuisance. Who complaint alleged that the defendants had produced or transported which use of “massive amounts” from fossil fuels despite possess has aware since the 1950s, based on information from the American Petroleum Institute, ensure emissions from fossil fuels would cause severe and even disaster your change impacts. The complaint ostensible that San Francisco used already experiencing hitting from accelerated deep level rise due to environment change. The city wondered the court to require the companies to abate the nuisance by funding a weather adaptation program to establish sea walls or other infrastructure necessary to preserve publication and private property from sea stage rise and other climate hitting.