City of Hoboken v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

A New Jersey Superior Court rejected fossil fuel industry defendants’ argument that it should dismiss the City of Hoboken’s climate change case against them because it was “nearly identical” to the State of New Jersey’s suit. The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss on this ground. The defendants’ motion, which asserted multiple other grounds for dismissal, remains pending.

Fossil fuel industry defendants filed a motion in New Jersey state court to dismiss the City of Hoboken’s claims seeking to hold them liable for the effects of climate change. They first argued that the court should defer to State of New Jersey’s “nearly identical” suit and dismiss the City’s suit. Second, they argued that the City’s state law claims could not be constitutionally applied to out-of-state conduct such as global emissions of greenhouse gases. Third, they contended that the Clean Air Act preempted the City’s state law claims. Fourth, they argued that the claims raised nonjusticiable political questions. Fifth, they argued that claims based on an alleged “campaign of misinformation” (as opposed to “greenwashing” claims) were barred by the statute of limitations. They also argued that the City’s complaint failed to state a claim under New Jersey law.

The City filed an amended complaint on April 21, 2023. The amended complaint included a count asserting violations of New Jersey’s Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act. The New Jersey Superior Court directed the defendants to file their motions to dismiss by June 20, 2023. The City agreed not to seek merits-related discovery until after the motions to dismiss were fully briefed.

The City of Hoboken, New Jersey filed a lawsuit in state court asserting climate change-based claims for damages and injunctive relief against energy companies and the American Petroleum Institute. The City alleged that the defendants caused climate change-related harms through production of fossil fuels and concealment of fossil fuels’ harms. The complaint alleged that Hoboken is “uniquely vulnerable to sea level rise” and that the city was experiencing more frequent and severe storms as a result of climate change. In response to these impacts, Hoboken alleged that it had developed an adaptation and mitigation plan to address rainfall and seawater flooding that would cost more than $500 million. The complaint asserted claims of public and private nuisance, trespass, negligence, and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The relief sought included compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages; treble damages under the Consumer Fraud Act; an order compelling the defendants to abate the alleged nuisance and to pay costs of abatement; an order enjoining future acts of trespass; and attorneys’ fees and costs.