Connecticut v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

The federal district court for the District of Connecticut granted the State of Connecticut’s motion to remand its lawsuit against Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) in which the State asserts claims under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) arising from Exxon’s alleged false or misleading statements about connections between its products and climate change, as well as alleged interference with the marketplace for renewable energy and alleged “greenwashing.” Citing the well-pleaded complaint rule, the court characterized Connecticut’s claims as alleging that Exxon “lied to Connecticut consumers and that these lies affected the behavior of those consumers”; the court said that “[t]he fact that the alleged lies were about the impacts of fossil fuels on the Earth’s climate does not empower the court to rewrite the Complaint and substitute other claims” such as the common law nuisance and trespass claims asserted against fossil fuel companies in other cases. The court then concluded that none of the exceptions to the well-pleaded complaint rule applied. First, the court found that Exxon failed to show that federal common law justified removal, even if it might provide a defense. Second, the court concluded that CUTPA claims did not “necessarily raise” federal issues, as would be required for the Grable exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule. In addition, the court found that neither the federal officer removal statute, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, federal enclave jurisdiction, nor diversity jurisdiction provided grounds for removal. The court denied, however, Connecticut’s motion for costs and fees, noting that several issues raised by Exxon were novel in the Second Circuit and that many relevant portions of district court rulings in other circuits had not been subject to appellate review until the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Baltimore case.