County of Santa Cruz v. Chevron Corp.

–

The City and County of Santa Cruz each filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court against 29 fossil fuel companies, alleging that greenhouse gas pollution from production and use of the defendants’ products had played “a direct and substantial role in the unprecedented rise in emissions of greenhouse gas pollution and increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations since the mid-20th century” and that the companies’ production, promotion, and marketing of their products, along with their concealment of the products’ known hazards and “championing of anti-regulation and anti-science campaigns,” had caused injuries to the City and County. The City and County alleged that the defendants were directly responsible for 17.5% of total global emissions of carbon dioxide between 1965 and 2015. The climate change-related injuries alleged by the City and County included drought, extreme precipitation and landslides, heat waves, wild fires, and sea level rise. The causes of action asserted in the complaint were public nuisance, strict liability based on failure to warn and design defect, private nuisance, negligence, and trespass. The City and County sought compensatory damages, equitable relief including abatement of the nuisance, punitive damages, and disgorgement of profits, as well as attorneys’ fees and other costs.

On January 22, 2018, the City of Richmond, California, filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court against 29 fossil fuel companies. The City seeks damages and other relief for climate change-related injuries allegedly resulting from the defendants’ “production, promotion, marketing of fossil fuel products, simultaneous concealment of the known hazards of those products, and their championing of anti-science campaigns.” The complaint alleged that the defendants were directly responsible for 17.5% of global carbon dioxide emissions between 1965 and 2015, and that during the past 50 years the defendants had taken steps to protect their own assets from climate change effects while simultaneously promoting use of their products and working to undermine support for greenhouse gas regulation. The climate change-related injuries alleged by the City included sea level rise, more frequent and more severe flooding and storms, drought, and heatwaves. The City alleged that it had already spent significant funds to study, mitigate, and adapt to the effects of climate change. The causes of action asserted by the City are public nuisance, strict liability based on both design defect and failure to warn, private nuisance, negligence, negligent failure to warn, and trespass. The City seeks compensatory damages, equitable relief including abatement of the nuisance, punitive damages, and disgorgement of profits, as well as attorneys’ fees and other costs.

–

–

–

–