Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

County of Santa Cruz v. Chevron Corp.

Geography
Year
2017
Document Type
Litigation
Part of

About this case

Filing year
2017
Status
Notice of appeal filed.
Docket number
5:18-cv-00450
Court/admin entity
United StatesUnited States Federal CourtsN.D. Cal.
Case category
AdaptationActions seeking money damages for lossesCommon Law Claims
Principal law
United StatesState Law–Strict LiabilityUnited StatesState Law—NegligenceUnited StatesState Law—NuisanceUnited StatesState Law—TrespassUnited StatesSupremacy Clause
At issue
Lawsuits alleging that fossil fuel companies caused cities' and county's climate change-related injuries.

Documents

Filing Date
Document
Type
07/18/2018
Appeal
07/10/2018
Motions to remand granted.
The federal district court for the Northern District of California granted motions by the County of Santa Cruz, City of Santa Cruz, and City of Richmond to remand to state court their lawsuits seeking to hold fossil fuel companies liable for climate change harms. The court cited its previous remand order in cases brought by the County of San Mateo, County of Marin, and City of Imperial Beach. The court stayed the remand orders pending the outcome of appeals in those other cases. The defendants are appealing to the Ninth Circuit.
Decision
03/23/2018
Reply filed by plaintiffs in support of motion to remand in response to Marathon Petroleum Corp.'s additional notice of removal.
Reply
03/20/2018
Opposition filed by Marathon Petroleum Corp. to plaintiffs' motion to remand in response to additional notice of removal.
Opposition
03/16/2018
Reply filed by plaintiffs in support of motion to remand; motion to remand filed in response to Marathon Petroleum Corp.'s additional notice of removal.
Reply
03/02/2018
Joint opposition to remand filed by defendants.
Opposition
02/16/2018
Motion to remand to state court filed by plaintiffs.
Motion
01/19/2018
Notice of removal filed.
The defendants in the Santa Cruz lawsuits removed those cases to federal court on January 19, 2018. The defendants in the Santa Cruz cases asserted that the plaintiffs’ claims implicated “uniquely federal interests” and were governed by federal common law. The defedants also asserted that the claims “attack federal policy decisions and threaten to upset longstanding federal-state relations, second-guess policy decisions made by Congress and the Executive Branch, and skew divisions of responsibility set forth in federal statutes and the United States Constitution” and therefore necessarily raised substantial and disputed questions of federal law. In addition, the defendants contended that the Clean Air Act completely preempted the claims and that the federal court had jurisdiction pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the federal officer removal statute, the federal enclave doctrine, and the bankruptcy removal statute.
Notice

Summary

Lawsuits alleging that fossil fuel companies caused cities' and county's climate change-related injuries.