County of Multnomah v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

In Multnomah County’s lawsuit against fossil fuel companies, the federal district court for the District of Oregon adopted a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations and granted the County’s motion to remand the lawsuit to state court. The findings and recommendations rejected the companies’ arguments based on federal question jurisdiction and on diversity jurisdiction. The district court was not persuaded that the magistrate judge applied an erroneous standard to the analysis of the companies’ argument that the County fraudulently joined the only non-diverse defendant. In addition, the court found that the complaint sufficiently alleged facts to state causes of action against the non-diverse defendant, even in the absence of an alleged misrepresentation by that defendant. The district court also was not persuaded that the magistrate improperly disregarded a declaration establishing that the non-resident defendant was not involved in the alleged misrepresentations.

A magistrate judge in the federal district court for the District of Oregon recommended that the court grant the County of Multnomah’s motion to remand to state court its lawsuit seeking damages from fossil fuel companies for climate change’s impacts on public health and infrastructure. The magistrate judge concluded that the Ninth Circuit’s opinions in other climate change cases brought by local governments against fossil fuel companies foreclosed the companies’ arguments that there was federal question jurisdiction. The magistrate further concluded that there was no diversity jurisdiction because a defendant that was licensed to sell fuel products in Oregon had not been fraudulently joined. The magistrate judge also rejected the contention that there was diversity jurisdiction because that defendant had been “procedurally misjoined.”

An Oregon Circuit Court denied defendants’ motion to stay the County of Multnomah’s climate lawsuit pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s resolution of the Boulder case. The Circuit Court found that the County demonstrated potential prejudice from a “multi-month, possibly year-long” stay due to the risk of loss of evidence, “including aging witnesses whose memories may be lost or further faded with the passage of time.” The court also found that given that the Supreme Court’s decision in Boulder might not fully dispose of all claims in the County’s case, potential prejudice to the defendants did not outweigh prejudice to the County. The court also found that further delay would not best serve judicial economy.

In a climate lawsuit against fossil fuel industry-related defendants brought by Multnomah County in Oregon, E&E News reported that an Oregon Circuit Court denied Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Inc.’s (Chevron’s) motion to strike references to articles supported or otherwise influenced by plaintiff's lead counsel. Chevron argued that the County’s lead counsel “failed to affirmatively disclose to the Court that he has supported or otherwise influenced at least two climate change studies, published in Nature in April and May 2025, that Plaintiff and its experts cite and rely upon as though they are independent works of scientific research.” Chevron argued that this constituted “fraud on the court” and was “part of a broader pattern” and asked the court to strike all references to the two studies and to consider ordering expedited discovery and a hearing on the lead counsel’s alleged misconduct. E&E News reported that the court found that there was not sufficient evidence to find “fraud on the court” but also stated that reliance on the studies “will carry absolutely no weight” and that “[t]his is simply not an appropriate way to practice law in the courts of the state of Oregon.”