City of Annapolis v. BP p.l.c.

–

–

The federal district court for the District of Maryland temporarily stayed its order remanding to state court the climate change cases brought by the City of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County. Although the court found that the fossil fuel industry defendants “have not evidenced a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their appeal,” the court found that a temporary stay was warranted due to uncertainty regarding the timing of the Supreme Court’s consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Tenth Circuit’s affirmation of the remand order in Colorado local governments’ climate change case. The district court cited the potential for a state court to reach “dispositive and irreversible outcomes” before the Supreme Court rendered a decision in the Colorado local governments’ case, given that the Supreme Court had invited the Solicitor General to provide its views on the Tenth Circuit petition without setting a deadline for the Solicitor General to submit its briefing. The district court therefore stayed the remand orders until further notice.

On January 23, 2025, the Maryland Circuit Court in Anne Arundel County dismissed the City of Annapolis’s and Anne Arundel County’s lawsuits seeking to hold fossil fuel industry defendants liable under state law for harms allegedly suffered as a result of climate change. The City and County asserted claims under Maryland common law and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. The court had issued a decision in May 2024 deferring a decision on the defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. In its January 23 decision, however, the court wrote that it was “persuaded on this second go-around” by the defendants’ authorities (including the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/american-electric-power-co-v-connecticut/">American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut</a> in 2011) and the Circuit Court for Baltimore City’s dismissal in July 2024 of Baltimore’s similar lawsuit against fossil fuel industry defendants. The Anne Arundel County Circuit Court also cited the Superior Court decision granting in part and denying in part motions to dismiss the State of Delaware’s <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/state-v-bp-america-inc/">case</a> against fossil fuel companies. The Anne Arundel County Circuit Court concluded that Anne Arundel County’s and City of Annapolis’s claims were federally preempted, “possibly by federal common law but surely by the Federal Clean Air Act.” The court also wrote that “[t]he clear message to be had, and this Court gets it, is as Justice Ginsburg for a unanimous Supreme Court says [in American Electric Power Co.] is that there is a prescribed order of decision-making—first by the expert then by federal judges. If states and municipalities even private parties are dissatisfied with the Federal rule making or the outcome of cases, they may seek federal court review.” The court found that it was not necessary to consider individual state law claims, concluding that if its decision dismissing the cases was reversed, the cases would “no doubt come back on remand regardless of this Court’s decision on the state law claims.” The Capital Gazette <a href="https://www.capitalgazette.com/2025/01/27/climate-suits-dismissed/">reported</a> that the County would appeal the dismissal and that the City was “keeping options open for what comes next.”

The Maryland Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County denied fossil fuel companies’ motions to dismiss claims by the City of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County that the companies’ “concealment and misrepresentation of their products’ known dangers—and simultaneous promotion of their unrestrained use—drove consumption, and thus greenhouse gas pollution, and thus the climate crisis.” With respect to personal jurisdiction, the court rejected the companies’ contention that they were not subject to the court’s general jurisdiction and also found that they had alleged “more than sufficient ‘contacts’ with Maryland which if shown can justify the invoking of the specific jurisdiction of this Court.” With respect to whether the plaintiffs stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court said it would exercise its discretion and defer a determination “until trial and/or until a further dispositive motion is considered after facts are discovered which can or cannot support the allegations.” The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages and also dismissed the American Petroleum Institute from the lawsuit, finding that the trade group was not a “person/merchant” within the meaning of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. The court, however, granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaints to plead a separate count for conspiracy that included American Petroleum Institute.

–