City of Hoboken v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

On October 19, the federal district court in New Jersey ordered that Hoboken’s case be remanded to state court.

On December 15, 2021, the federal district court for the District of New Jersey granted fossil fuel industry defendants’ motion to stay its order remanding the City of Hoboken’s climate change case to state court. Although the district court found that the defendants did not make a strong showing that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their appeal in the Third Circuit and therefore failed to establish that a stay pending appeal was warranted, the court concluded that factors such as consideration of judicial economy and conservation of resources favored granting a stay using the court’s inherent power to control its own docket.

A New Jersey Superior Court rejected fossil fuel industry defendants’ argument that it should dismiss the City of Hoboken’s climate change case against them because it was “nearly identical” to the State of New Jersey’s suit. The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss on this ground. The defendants’ motion, which asserted multiple other grounds for dismissal, remains pending.

Fossil fuel industry defendants filed a motion in New Jersey state court to dismiss the City of Hoboken’s claims seeking to hold them liable for the effects of climate change. They first argued that the court should defer to State of New Jersey’s “nearly identical” suit and dismiss the City’s suit. Second, they argued that the City’s state law claims could not be constitutionally applied to out-of-state conduct such as global emissions of greenhouse gases. Third, they contended that the Clean Air Act preempted the City’s state law claims. Fourth, they argued that the claims raised nonjusticiable political questions. Fifth, they argued that claims based on an alleged “campaign of misinformation” (as opposed to “greenwashing” claims) were barred by the statute of limitations. They also argued that the City’s complaint failed to state a claim under New Jersey law.

On October 12, 2022, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied fossil fuel industry defendants’ request that it stay issuance of the mandates after the court affirmed district court orders remanding climate change cases brought by the City of Hoboken and the State of Delaware to state court. The defendants had argued that issuance of the mandates should be stayed to allow the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a letter to the Third Circuit in support of its motion to stay the mandates in the City of Hoboken’s and State of Delaware’s cases, the defendants argued that the Supreme Court’s invitation to the Solicitor General to submit the U.S.'s views on the certiorari petition in the Boulder case made clear that these jurisdictional questions were “substantial.” The defendants cited an article that found that certiorari petitions were more than 46 times more likely to be granted once the Court sought the Solicitor General’s views. The defendants also cited the position the United States had previously taken in amicus briefs in Baltimore’s case and the Oakland/San Francisco case that the plaintiffs’ climate change claims were “inherently and necessarily federal in nature.”

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied fossil fuel industry defendants’ petition for rehearing of the court’s decision affirming the remand orders in climate change cases brought by the City of Hoboken and the State of Delaware.