Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

City of Charleston v. Brabham Oil Co.

Geography
🇺🇸 United States / South Carolina
Year
2020
Document Type
Litigation
Part of
City of Charleston v. Brabham Oil Co.

About this case

Filing year
2020
Status
Motion to remand granted.
Geography
🇺🇸 United States → South Carolina
Docket number
2:20-cv-03579
Court/admin entity
United States → United States Federal Courts → D.S.C.
Case category
Adaptation → Actions seeking money damages for lossesCommon Law Claims
Principal law
United States → Maritime Law—TrespassUnited States → South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices ActUnited States → State Law–Strict LiabilityUnited States → State Law—NegligenceUnited States → State Law—Nuisance
At issue
Lawsuit seeking to hold fossil fuel companies liable for the impacts of climate change on the City of Charleston.
Topics
, ,  

Documents

Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics 
Beta
07/05/2023
Motion to remand granted.
Decision
04/17/2023
Response filed by defendants to plaintiff's April 6, 2023 notice of supplemental authority.
Response
04/06/2023
Notice of supplemental authority filed by plaintiff (Eighth Circuit decision in Minnesota's case and U.S. Solicitor General brief regarding certiorari petition in Boulder et al. case).
Notice
01/20/2023
Reply filed by defendants Piedmont Petroleum Corp. and Brabham Oil Company, Inc. in support of motion for leave to file sur-reply in opposition to plaintiff's renewed motion to remand.
Reply
01/13/2023
Opposition filed by plaintiff to defendants Piedmont Petroleum Corp.'s and Brabham Oil Company, Inc.'s motion for leave to file surreply.
Opposition
12/30/2022
Motion filed by defendants Piedmont Petroleum Corp. and Brabham Oil Company, Inc. for leave to file sur-reply in opposition to motion to remand.
Two defendants asked for leave to file a sur-reply in opposition to the City of Charleston’s motion to remand its case to state court. The two companies argued that the City had raised a new argument in its supplemental reply that they could be liable under a failure to warn theory even if they did not participate in any alleged disinformation campaign.
Motion
11/21/2022
Supplemental reply filed by plaintiff in support of motion to remand to state court.
Reply
11/01/2022
Supplemental answering brief filed by defendants in opposition to plaintiff's renewed motion to remand.
Opposition
09/27/2022
Supplemental opening brief filed in support of motion to remand to state court.
Brief
07/11/2022
Joint status report filed summarizing proceedings and setting forth parties' positions on potential next steps.
Status Report
05/27/2021
Proceedings stayed pending Fourth Circuit's decision on remand in the Baltimore case.
On May 27, 2021, the federal district court for the District of South Carolina stayed proceedings in the City of Charleston’s lawsuit against fossil fuel companies pending the Fourth Circuit’s decision on remand in the Baltimore case. Briefing on the City of Charleston’s motion to remand was completed earlier in May. As set forth in a joint stipulation filed by the parties on May 25, the court directed them to file a joint submission regarding the next steps in the case within 14 days of the Fourth Circuit’s decision on remand.
Decision
05/25/2021
Stipulation and proposed order to stay proceedings filed.
Stipulation

Summary

Lawsuit seeking to hold fossil fuel companies liable for the impacts of climate change on the City of Charleston.

 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
Renewable energy
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector