City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c.

In an unpublished memorandum, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the remand to state court of Oakland’s and San Francisco’s climate change cases against fossil fuel companies. Citing its 2022 decisions in <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/county-san-mateo-v-chevron-corp/">County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.</a> and <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/city-county-of-honolulu-v-sunoco-lp/">City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP</a>, the Ninth Circuit found that neither of the grounds for removal that the companies raised on appeal provided a basis for federal jurisdiction. First, the Ninth Circuit found that the companies’ actions during World War II and pursuant to ongoing specialized fuel contracts were actions taken pursuant to “arms-length business agreements,” and that the companies were not “acting under” federal officers, as would be required for removal under the federal officer removal statute. Second, the Ninth Circuit rejected the companies’ argument that the Grable exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule applied because the cities’ claims necessarily raised substantial and disputed First Amendment issues. The court noted that it was settled law that a case cannot be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense, even if the complaint anticipates the defense.

After initially setting a date of November 13 for oral argument in fossil fuel companies’ appeals seeking to reverse the remand to state court of Oakland’s and San Francisco’s climate change cases, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that “the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument.”