- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United States
- /
- Maryland
- /
- Anne Arundel County v. BP p.l.c.
Anne Arundel County v. BP p.l.c.
Geography
Year
2021
Document Type
Litigation
Part of
About this case
Filing year
2021
Status
Remand orders affirmed.
Geography
Docket number
22-2082, 22-2101
Court/admin entity
United States → United States Federal Courts → United States Fourth Circuit (4th Cir.)
Case category
Adaptation → Actions seeking money damages for lossesCommon Law Claims
Principal law
United States → State Law–Strict LiabilityUnited States → State Law—NegligenceUnited States → State Law—NuisanceUnited States → State Law—Trespass
At issue
Lawsuit seeking to hold fossil fuel companies liable for the consequences of climate change in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
02/26/2024
Remand orders affirmed.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s decision remanding cases brought by Anne Arundel County and the City of Annapolis against fossil fuel companies to state court. The Fourth Circuit described the cases as two of the cases brought by state and local governments in recent years alleging that the defendants “misrepresented and concealed information about their fossil fuel products in violation of state tort and consumer protection laws.” The Fourth Circuit said the companies “have sought—over and over and over—to remove the cases to federal court” but that “that gambit has failed in at least ten cases already,” and “[t]he eleventh time is not the charm.” The Fourth Circuit noted that the district court in Anne Arundel County’s and Annapolis’s cases had rejected most grounds for removal as foreclosed by the Fourth Circuit’s 2022 decision in <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/mayor-city-council-of-baltimore-v-bp-plc/">Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP p.l.c.</a> and that the district court also rejected a variation of one of those foreclosed grounds (federal-officer removal) as well as a new argument for removal related to the companies’ First Amendment defenses to the plaintiffs’ claims. Regarding the variation of the defendants’ federal-officer removal argument, the Fourth Circuit concluded that it did not supply a basis for jurisdiction because the actions that the companies said they did under federal authority—including production of fuels in connection with military activity in the 1940s and 1950s and extraction of fuels and operation of energy infrastructure under federal regulations or commercial relationships with the federal government—were not the activities that were the subject of the plaintiffs’ allegations, which concerned concealment or misrepresentation of information about fossil fuel products. Regarding the defendants’ new argument that courts would necessarily have to consider First Amendment questions regarding protection of commercial speech to resolve the localities’ misrepresentation claims, the Fourth Circuit agreed with two other circuit courts of appeals that the First Amendment issues were not “necessary elements” of the local government’s claims and therefore did not supply a basis for federal jurisdiction.
Decision
12/04/2023
Defendants filed letter responding to plaintiffs' supplemental authorities (Hawai'i Supreme Court decision in Honolulu case and Ninth Circuit decision in Oakland/San Francisco cases).
Letter
11/28/2023
Letter filed by plaintiffs regarding supplemental authority (Ninth Circuit decision in Oakland/San Francisco cases).
Notice
11/28/2023
Letter filed by plaintiffs regarding supplemental authority (Hawai'i Supreme Court decision in Honolulu case).
Notice
10/12/2023
Oral argument scheduled.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals scheduled oral argument for December 6 in fossil fuel companies’ appeals of remand orders in cases brought by the City of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County.
Notice
10/02/2023
Defendants-appellants filed response to motion to submit on the papers.
Response
09/29/2023
Letter regarding supplemental authorities (Second Circuit decision in Connecticut case) submitted by plaintiffs.
Letter
09/20/2023
Motion to submit on the papers filed by plaintiffs-appellees.
Motion
05/05/2023
Letter filed by defendants-appellants responding to plaintiffs-appellees' April 28, 2023 notice of supplemental authority.
Letter
04/28/2023
Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees regarding supplemental authority (Supreme Court's denials of certiorari petitions in Boulder and other cases).
Letter
04/12/2023
Response filed by defendants-appellants to plaintiffs-appellees' supplemental authority (Eighth Circuit decision in Minnesota's case and U.S. Solicitor General brief regarding certiorari petition in Boulder et al. case).
Letter
04/03/2023
Supplemental authority (U.S. Solicitor General's brief in Boulder County case) submitted by plaintiffs-appellees.
Letter
02/08/2023
Response brief filed by plaintiffs-appellees.
Brief
01/09/2023
Opening brief filed by defendants-appellants.
Brief
Summary
Lawsuit seeking to hold fossil fuel companies liable for the consequences of climate change in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.
Topics mentioned most in this case Beta
See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more
Group
Topics
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Just transition
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience