- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- County of Multnomah v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
Collection
County of Multnomah v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
County of Multnomah v. Exxon Mobil Corp. ↗
3:23-cv-01213D. Or.6 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
06/10/2024
Decision
Motion to remand granted.
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.
04/10/2024
Report And Recommendation
Findings and recommendations issued recommending that motion to remand be granted.
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.”
11/16/2023
Response
Response filed by defendant Space Age Fuel, Inc. in opposition to motion to remand.
–
County of Multnomah v. Exxon Mobil Corp. ↗
23CV25164 Or. Cir. Ct.16 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
06/27/2025
Affidavit/Declaration
Declaration of Benjamin A. Franta, Ph.D., J.D.-P.H.D.
Benjamin A. Franta submitted a declaration with his June 27, 2025 report, "Defendants' Historical and Ongoing 14 Misrepresentations Regarding Climate Change and Their Effects on Multnomah County."
05/19/2025
Affidavit/Declaration
Affidavit of John Wasiutynski, Director of the Office of Sustainability for Multnomah County.
–
04/17/2025
Affidavit/Declaration
Declaration of Daniel L. Swain, Ph.D.
Daniel L. Swain submitted a declaration with his April 17, 2025 report, "Recent Pacific Northwest extreme events, attribution to anthropogenic climate change, and potential links to specific emitters."
04/11/2025
Affidavit/Declaration
Declaration of Richard Heede.
Richard Heede, a climate scientist and director and co-founder of the Climate Accountability Institute, submitted a declaration with his April 11, 2025 report, "Extraction, refining, & sales: Comparing emissions of CO2 and methane of selected oil, gas, and coal companies from 1950 to 2022."