- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United States
- /
- California
- /
- County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.
Litigation
County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.
About this case
Documents
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
06/23/2021
Notice
Notice of voluntary dismissal of third-party complaints against Equinor ASA filed by Chevron third-party plaintiffs.
–
08/20/2020
Decision
Order issued clarifying the terms of the stay of remand.
The court issued an order clarifying the stay of remand was intended to remain in place until the mandate issued and that the companies could have requested an additional stay.
08/10/2020
Motion
Administrative motion filed by the defendants to confirm the stay or, in the alternative, to delay remand.
The companies filed a motion in the district court to confirm that the court’s orders staying issuance of the remand orders pending appeal would extend to the conclusion of any Supreme Court proceedings.
07/10/2020
Notice Of Voluntary Dismissal
Plaintiff filed notice of dismissal of Arch Coal, Inc. with prejudice.
–
07/01/2020
Notice
Notice of dismissal of defendant Peabody Energy Corp. with prejudice filed by plaintiff.
–
04/09/2018
Decision
Motion to stay remand order pending appeal granted.
The federal district court for the Northern District of California granted the defendants’ motion to stay its remand orders pending appeal in the climate change lawsuits brought by the Counties of San Mateo and Marin and the City of Imperial Beach against a number of fossil fuel companies. The court also certified for interlocutory appeal all issues addressed in the remand order.
03/26/2018
Motion
Motion to stay pending appeal filed by defendants.
On March 26, the defendants filed a notice of appeal and moved for a stay pending appeal. They argued that all facets of the remand order were appealable as of right because removal was based in part on the federal officer removal statute. The defendants also asserted that appellate review of the remand order was the “only avenue for immediate appellate review of these important and complex questions of federal jurisdiction” since Oakland and Francisco had elected not to seek interlocutory review of the denial of remand in their cases.
03/16/2018
Decision
Motions to remand granted; remand orders stayed for 42 days.
The federal district court for the Northern District of California remanded to state court the lawsuits brought by the Counties of San Mateo and Marin and the City of Imperial Beach against fossil fuel companies for damages arising from climate change. Citing the Supreme Court’s and Ninth Circuit’s decisions that the Clean Air Act displaced federal common law claims seeking abatement of greenhouse gas emissions (American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut) and federal common law claims seeking damages for defendants’ contributions to climate change (Native Village of Kivalina ExxonMobil Corp.), the district court concluded that the Clean Air Act also displaced federal common law in these three cases. The court disagreed with the determination in the Oakland and San Francisco cases that federal common law could apply to the claims in these cases because the claims were materially different from the damages claims in Kivalina. The court stated: “Simply put, these cases should not have been removed to federal court on the basis of federal common law that no longer exists.” The court also rejected other bases for removal, including the doctrine of complete preemption; jurisdiction based on the presence of a specific issue of federal law that must necessarily be resolved to adjudicate state law claims (Grable jurisdiction); and specialized statutory provisions cited by the defendants (the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, federal officer removal, and bankruptcy removal). The court stayed the remand order for 42 days.
01/25/2018
Motion
Administrative motion to relate cases filed by defendants.
The defendants requested that the San Mateo County, Marin County, and Imperial Beach cases be related to the County and City of Santa Cruz actions that also had been removed to federal court.
12/22/2017
Opposition
Joint opposition to remand filed by defendants.
On December 22, 2017, the defendants filed papers opposing the plaintiffs’ motion to remand the actions to California state court. Their opposition papers argued that the plaintiffs’ claims could only arise under federal common law, that they raised substantial and disputed federal issues, that they were completely preempted by federal law, and that the claims were based on the defendants’ actions on federal lands and at the direction of the federal government or were removal under the bankruptcy removal statute. The defendants also made an alternative argument that even if plaintiffs were correct that state law applied to global climate change “of its own force,” the complaints still presented removable federal questions because federal law determined which state law should apply and when state law should apply. A hearing was scheduled for February 15, 2018 on the remand motion.
12/15/2017
Complaint
Third-party complaint filed by Chevron parties.
On December 15, 2017, the Chevron defendants in the climate change lawsuits brought by the County of San Mateo and the City of Imperial Beach filed a third-party claim for indemnity and contribution against Statoil ASA (Statoil), an energy company for which the majority stakeholder is the Norwegian State. Statoil was originally a defendant in the cases, but the plaintiffs dismissed the complaint as to Statoil without prejudice in July 2017. The Chevron defendants asserted that City and County’s underlying claims against them were without merit but that if the claims were found to have merit, the plaintiffs’ allegations “would implicate Statoil as a party responsible for a portion of the injuries and damages Plaintiffs claim on the same basis as they would implicate the Chevron Parties and the other named Defendants.”
11/08/2017
Decision
Administrative motion to relate cases denied.
The Executive Committee for the Northern District of California denied the motion by defendants in climate change cases brought by the Oakland and San Francisco city attorneys to relate those two cases to the pending cases brought by San Mateo and Marin Counties and the City of Imperial Beach.
11/03/2017
Opposition
Joint response filed by Oakland and San Francisco in opposition to administrative motion to relate cases.
–
08/24/2017
Notice
Notice of removal filed.
Defendants Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (together, Chevron) removed all three actions filed by two California counties and one city against fossil fuel companies to the federal district court for the Northern District of California. Chevron said all other defendants joined in or had consented to the notice of removal. Chevron also said the defendants would be moving “at the appropriate time” to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. Chevron asserted that though the complaint nominally asserted state law claims, it should be heard in a federal forum because there was federal question jurisdiction. Citing the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., Chevron argued that “[r]eflecting the uniquely federal interests posed by greenhouse gas claims like these,” the Ninth Circuit had recognized “that causes of action of the types asserted here are governed by federal common law, not state law.” Chevron also said removal was also authorized because the action “necessarily raises disputed and substantial federal questions that a federal forum may entertain without disturbing a congressionally approved balance of responsibilities between the federal and state judiciaries”; because the Clean Air Act and other federal statutes and the U.S. Constitution completely preempted the plaintiffs’ claims; because the action arose under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA); because a causal nexus existed between the alleged actions taken by the defendants pursuant to a federal officer’s directions and the plaintiffs’ claims and because the defendants could assert colorable federal defenses; because the claims were based on alleged injuries to or conduct on federal enclaves; and because the state law claims were related to bankruptcy cases.
Summary
Action by California counties and cities seeking damages and other relief from fossil fuel companies for sea level rise.