- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Products Co.
Collection
Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Products Co.
Rhode Island v. Chevron Corp. ↗
1:18-cv-00395D.R.I.24 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
10/24/2019
Decision
Motion to remand granted and certified copy of order sent to clerk of court for the state court.
–
10/09/2019
Decision
Court granted motion to stay remand order pending resolution of stay application to the Supreme Court.
The district court stayed its remand order until October 24, 2019 or until Justice Breyer acts on the defendants' stay application, whichever occurs earlier. The court said it would consider whether to extend the order if Justice Breyer did not act by October 24.
10/07/2019
Motion
Motion filed by defendants to temporarily extend stay of the remand order pending resolution of stay application to the Supreme Court.
–
10/07/2019
Letter
Letter filed by defendants requesting that remand order not be entered until after First Circuit and Supreme Court act on pending motion and application to stay.
–
Rhode Island v. Chevron Corp. ↗
PC-2018-4716R.I. Super. Ct.28 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
04/22/2025
Decision
Chevron's motion to strike claims and find Rule 11 sanctions denied.
A Rhode Island Superior Court denied a motion by Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (together, Chevron) to strike certain jurisdictional allegations from the State of Rhode Island’s complaint in its lawsuit to hold Chevron and other fossil fuel defendants liable for their contributions to climate change harms to the State. Chevron characterized as “baseless” the State’s allegations that Chevron “extracted,” “refined,” “and/or” “manufactured” a “substantial portion of” Chevron’s fossil fuel products in Rhode Island and that Rhode Island “consume[s]” a “substantial portion” of Chevron’s products. The court found that the State “had a good faith basis” for the allegations. The court also rejected Chevron’s contentions that the use of “and/or” in the allegations was improper and that the allegations constituted improper shotgun or group pleading. The court also denied both Chevron’s and the State’s requests that it impose sanctions.
03/24/2025
Motion
Memorandum of law filed by Rhode Island in support of motion to compel Chevron defendants to produce documents.
–
03/21/2025
Opposition
Memorandum of law filed by plaintiff State of Rhode Island in opposition to Chevron defendants' Rule 11 motion to strike from the complaint and for additional sanctions.
–
Shell Oil Products Co. v. Rhode Island ↗
22-524U.S.6 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
04/24/2023
Decision
Petition for writ of certiorari denied.
On April 24, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court denied fossil fuel industry defendants’ petitions for writ of certiorari seeking review of decisions affirming remand orders that sent climate change cases brought by state and local governments back to state courts. The fossil fuel companies had asked the Court to consider whether there was federal jurisdiction over state-law claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate or transboundary greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate because federal common law necessarily governs such claims. Justice Alito did not participate in the consideration of or decision on the petitions.
02/22/2023
Reply
Reply brief filed by plaintiffs.
Briefing was completed for the petition for writ of certiorari in Rhode Island’s case on February 22, 2023. The case originally was distributed for the justices’ conference on March 17, but it was rescheduled on February 27. A new date was not set.
01/05/2023
Amicus Motion/Brief
Brief filed by amicus curiae Energy Policy Advocates in support of the petitioners.
Two amicus briefs were filed in support of fossil fuel companies’ petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the remand order in Rhode Island’s climate case. Energy Policy Advocates contended that records it had obtained under the Rhode Island Access to Public Records Act showed that the lawsuit was an improper attempt to make climate change policy through the courts.
Shell Oil Products Co. v. Rhode Island ↗
20-900U.S.2 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
05/24/2021
Decision
Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded.
–
The Supreme Court granted the fossil fuel companies' petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the First Circuit's decision affirming the district court's remand order. The Court vacated the First Circuit's judgment in the case and remanded for further consideration in light of its decision in BP p.l.c. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore holding that the Fourth Circuit should have reviewed grounds for removal other than the federal officer removal statute. Justice Alito did not take part in the consideration of the case.
12/30/2020
Petition For Writ Of Certiorari
Petition for writ of certiorari filed.
In December 2020, fossil fuel companies filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the First Circuit's decision affirming affirming the remand order in the climate change case brought by Rhode Island. The companies requested that the petition be held pending the outcome of the Baltimore case since their petition raises the same jurisdictional issue.
BP p.l.c. v. Rhode Island ↗
19A391U.S.2 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
10/22/2019
Decision
Application for stay denied by Justice Breyer.
–
Justice Breyer, the circuit justice for the First Circuit, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19a391.html">denied</a> the fossil fuel companies' application for a stay pending appeal of the remand order. In the Rhode Island case, the federal district court issued a text order granting the motion to remand two days after Justice Breyer denied the stay. The companies’ brief in their First Circuit appeal of the remand order is due on November 20.
10/07/2019
Application
Defendants filed application to stay district court's remand order pending appeal and request for immediate administrative stay.
–
Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Products Co. ↗
19-18181st Cir.96 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
07/07/2022
Decision
Petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc denied.
On July 7, 2022, the First Circuit Court of Appeals denied fossil fuel companies’ petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc of the First Circuit’s affirmance of the district court’s remand of Rhode Island’s climate case to state court.
06/28/2022
Amicus Motion/Brief
Amicus brief filed by Indiana and 15 other states in support of appellants' petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc.
–
06/21/2022
Petition For Rehearing
Petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc filed.
Fossil fuel companies filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc of the First Circuit’s affirmance of the district court’s remand of Rhode Island’s climate case to state court. The companies first argued that the First Circuit was at odds with “a mostly unbroken string of cases” applying federal law to interstate air pollution disputes. The companies also argued that the First Circuit panel had confused the effect of the Clean Air Act’s displacement of federal common law of interstate pollution. The defendants contended that the displacement was of any remedy under federal common law, not displacement of the “exclusively federal source of law.” They further argued that the First Circuit’s consideration of this issue was at odds with First Circuit precedent, other circuits’ decisions, the position of the United States, and Supreme Court decisions.
05/23/2022
Decision
Remand order affirmed.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court order remanding Rhode Island’s climate change case against energy companies to state court. The First Circuit noted that this was its “second pass at a climate-change case that requires us to explore the mind-numbing complexities of federal removal jurisdiction.” In 2021, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the First Circuit’s 2020 affirmance of the remand order after determining in the <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/mayor-city-council-of-baltimore-v-bp-plc/">Baltimore</a> case that federal appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider appeals on all grounds for removal when the federal-officer removal statute is one basis for removal. In reviewing the other grounds for removal in Rhode Island’s case, the First Circuit “lean[ed] hard on our sibling circuits’ analyses in comparable climate-change cases,” and agreed with the other courts’ conclusions that there was no federal jurisdiction over Rhode Island’s claims, which the court characterized as seeking to hold the companies liable for climate change-related harms allegedly caused by the companies “deliberately misrepresenting the dangers they knew would arise from their deceptive hyping of fossil fuels.” First, the First Circuit found that even if the well-pleaded complaint rule did not prevent the court from finding that Rhode Island’s state-law claims were necessarily federal common law claims, the companies “cannot premise removal on a federal common law that no longer exists.” The First Circuit said that even if control of interstate pollution, promotion of energy independence, and negotiation of treaties addressing climate change were “uniquely federal interests,” the companies did not satisfy the second requirement for creating federal common law—that there be a “significant conflict … between some federal policy or interest and the use of state law.” The First Circuit also said that even if the companies had not failed to make a showing of a significant conflict, statutes—the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act—had displaced any federal common law that previously existed. Second, the First Circuit found that there was no Grable jurisdiction because the companies did not establish that a federal issue was a necessary element of any of Rhode Island’s state-law claims. Third, the First Circuit rejected the argument that the Clean Air Act completely preempted Rhode Island’s claims. Fourth, the court found that federal enclave jurisdiction did not apply since Rhode Island specifically avoided seeking relief for alleged damages to federal lands and because “some of the pertinent events … occurred outside federal enclaves.” Fifth, the First Circuit found that the companies failed to establish that Rhode Island’s claims satisfied the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act’s jurisdiction requirement that cases arise “in connection with” an operation conducted on the Outer Continental Shelf. Sixth, the First Circuit found that admiralty jurisdiction did not exist because Rhode Island did not allege that a vessel caused its land-based injuries. Lastly, the First Circuit rejected the companies’ invocation of bankruptcy jurisdiction based on Rhode Island’s claims’ relationship to the bankruptcy case of Texaco Inc. or other bankruptcy matters of predecessors, subsidiaries, and affiliates.