- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United States
- /
- South Carolina
- /
- City of Charleston v. Brabham Oil Co.
Litigation
City of Charleston v. Brabham Oil Co.
About this case
Documents
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
08/06/2025
Decision
Joint motion to dismiss granted.
The South Carolina Court of Common Pleas dismissed the City of Charleston’s lawsuit seeking compensation from fossil fuel companies for damages allegedly incurred as a result of the companies’ deceptive marketing of their products, which inflated consumption of fossil fuels and accelerated climate change. First, the court concluded that the structure of the U.S. Constitution precluded the City’s state law claims—which were based on tort law and the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act—because they involved interstate and international greenhouse gas emissions. Second, the court held that the Clean Air Act preempted the City’s claims, analogizing to Supreme Court precedent holding that the Clean Water Act precluded application of state law against out-of-state sources. The court further held that the claims should be dismissed as a matter of state law on four grounds: (1) the political question doctrine; (2) the statute of limitations; (3) failure to adequately allege the claims; and (4) lack of personal jurisdiction over certain defendants.
05/05/2025
Response
Parties filed joint response to court's request regarding President Trump's executive order.
In the climate case brought by the City of Charleston, South Carolina, against fossil fuel companies, the parties submitted a joint response to the court’s request that they set forth their positions on whether President Trump’s Executive Order 14260, “Protecting American Energy from State Overreach,” which directed the Attorney General to take action to stop state and local actions that burden domestic energy, had implications for the City’s case. The City contended that neither the executive order nor the executive branch possessed constitutional authority to dictate how the court should rule. Defendants argued that the executive order confirmed that the court should grant their motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
03/14/2025
Brief
Summary response brief filed in support of defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and certain defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
–
03/13/2025
Response
Supplemental response filed by plaintiff City of Charleston in support of its opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
–
02/14/2025
Brief
Supplemental brief filed by plaintiff City of Charleston in support of its opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
–
02/14/2025
Brief
Summary brief filed in support of defendants' motion to dismiss for faliure to state a claim and certain defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
–
09/06/2024
Letter
Letter filed by City of Charleston regarding opinion in Connecticut v Exxon Mobil Corp.
–
09/03/2024
Amicus Motion/Brief
Amicus brief filed by South Carolina attorney general in support of motion to dismiss.
–
02/20/2024
Reply
Reply filed in support of Chevron defendants' anti-SLAPP special motion to dismiss.
–
02/20/2024
Reply
Reply memorandum filed by Piedmont Petroleum Corporation in support of defendants' motion to dismiss.
–
02/20/2024
Reply
Reply filed in support of Chevron defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
–
02/20/2024
Reply
Reply memorandum filed in support of defendant Colonial Pipeline Company's motion to dismiss.
–
02/20/2024
Reply
Reply memorandum filed by ConocoPhillips defendants' individual reply memorandum in support of defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
–
02/20/2024
Reply
Reply filed by Phillips 66 defendants in support of individual memorandum of law in support of defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
–
02/20/2024
Reply
Joint reply memorandum filed in support of certain defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
–
02/20/2024
Reply
Reply memorandum filed by defendant Murphy Oil USA, Inc. in support of motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
–
02/20/2024
Reply
Reply filed by Shell defendants in further support of individual motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
–
02/16/2024
Reply
Reply filed in further support of BP p.l.c. and BP America Inc.'s individual motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
–
01/05/2024
Opposition
Memorandum of law filed by City of Charleston in opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
–
09/09/2020
Complaint
Complaint filed.
The City of Charleston filed an action in the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas against fossil fuel companies asserting that they are responsible for “devastating adverse” climate change impacts on Charleston and its residents. The alleged impacts included flooding, inundation, erosion, and beach loss due to sea level rise; “more frequent, longer-lasting and more severe” extreme weather events; and resulting social, economic, and other consequences. The conduct alleged to be a substantial factor in causing the impacts includes failure to warn of threats posed by fossil fuel products, wrongful promotion of fossil fuels and concealment of known hazards, “public deception campaigns designed to obscure the connection” between the defendants’ products and climate change, and failure to pursue less hazardous alternatives. The City asserted claims of public and private nuisance, strict liability for failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, and trespass, as well as violations of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act. The City sought compensatory damages, treble damages under the Unfair Trade Practices Act, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, and costs of suit.
Summary
Lawsuit seeking to hold fossil fuel companies liable for the impacts of climate change on the City of Charleston.