- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Municipality of Bayamón v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
Collection
Municipality of Bayamón v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
Municipality of Bayamón v. Exxon Mobil Corp. ↗
3:22-cv-01550D.P.R.51 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
09/11/2025
Decision
Claims against Occidental, Rio Tinto, and BHP dismissed without prejudice; RICO claim against American Petroleum Institute dismissed with prejudice and federal antitrust claim and Puerto Rico law claims against API dismissed without prejudice; and claims against Exxon, Shell, Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips, and Motiva dismissed with prejudice.
The federal district court for the District of Puerto Rico dismissed Puerto Rico municipalities’ federal and Puerto Rico law claims that fossil fuel industry defendants misrepresented the climate change-related risks of their products, which led to destructive hurricanes in 2017 that caused extensive damages. First, the court found that it could exercise personal jurisdiction over Exxon Mobil Corporation, Shell PLC, BP PLC, Motiva Enterprises LLC, Chevron Corporation, and ConocoPhillips as to all of the municipalities’ claims. The court dismissed all claims against Occidental Petroleum due to insufficient service of process and all claims against Rio Tinto PLC and BHP Group for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court also found that it lacked personal jurisdiction over American Petroleum Institute (API) for the federal antitrust and Puerto Rico law claims but that it had jurisdiction for claims against API under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). On the merits, the court concluded that claims under RICO, federal antitrust law, and Puerto Rico law were time-barred under the applicable statutes of limitations. The court found that there was “overwhelming evidence of public knowledge of articles, reports, and cases making the connection between Defendants and Plaintiffs’ claims” so that by September 2021, four years after the 2017 hurricanes, the plaintiffs knew or should have known both that they suffered injury and also whom to sue. The court concluded that the continuing tort and related doctrines did not apply; the court also found that equitable tolling based on alleged fraudulent concealment or on more general equitable tolling principles would not apply. The dismissals of claims on jurisdiction and service of process grounds were without prejudice; the dismissals of claims as time-barred were with prejudice.
07/02/2025
Response
Response filed by defendants' to plaintiffs' supplemental brief on the implications of Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization.
–
07/02/2025
Response
Memorandum of law filed by plaintiffs in response to defendants' supplemental brief on the implications of Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization.
–