Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

City of Charleston v. Brabham Oil Co.

Geography
🇺🇸 United States / South Carolina
Date
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.

Documents

Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Summary
Document
07/05/2023
Decision
Motion to remand granted.
–
View
04/17/2023
Response
Response filed by defendants to plaintiff's April 6, 2023 notice of supplemental authority.
–
View
04/06/2023
Notice
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).
–
View
01/20/2023
Reply
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.
–
View
01/13/2023
Opposition
Opposition filed by plaintiff to defendants Piedmont Petroleum Corp.'s and Brabham Oil Company, Inc.'s motion for leave to file surreply.
–
View
12/30/2022
Motion
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.
View
11/21/2022
Reply
Supplemental reply filed by plaintiff in support of motion to remand to state court.
–
View
11/01/2022
Opposition
Supplemental answering brief filed by defendants in opposition to plaintiff's renewed motion to remand.
–
View
09/27/2022
Brief
Supplemental opening brief filed in support of motion to remand to state court.
–
View
07/11/2022
Status Report
Joint status report filed summarizing proceedings and setting forth parties' positions on potential next steps.
–
View
05/27/2021
Decision
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.
View
05/25/2021
Stipulation
Stipulation and proposed order to stay proceedings filed.
–
View

Summary

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